An interview with Gilman Louie, Chairman of Microprose.
Thanks for taking the time, Gilman. And a big thank you from our
readers, who have really appreciated your presence on our F4 forum!
GL: The forums are great and it's been fun to be there...
One of our writers wants to know: Is that you in the intro movie in F4?
GL: (laughs) Yes, that is me in the intro movie! I went up in
the F16 ride and our art department got a hold of the footage.. I'm not
sure what I'm going to see happen to me next!
Great.. What was the first sim you flew on a computer?
GL: The first sim I actually flew on a computer was Sub-Logic's
flight sim on the Apple II. And the first military sim I flew was that
Buckley.. the A7 sim... back in '86.
Wow, its been a LONG time!
GL: Yeah, it has! And I still have that cassette tape! I mean,
the most frustrating thing about that sim was trying to get the loader
to load the game without crashing the Apple II... (laughs) see, we even
had these problems back then!
How long has it actually been since F3?
GL: F3 was 1991. Eight years...
Wow, THAT is amazing!
GL: It's even more amazing that people still play it!
Yeh, isn't it? Actually, I was visiting Chips and Bits site
yesterday to see their current price, and they list Falcon 3, Gold I
think, for about $15!
GL: It's the most amazing thing. I mean, to get that thing to
run on today's systems...it required 604 K in DOS, so people used to
run QEMM to get all the features. You have to rub sticks together to
get that to run in today's operating systems...
What stands out to you about Falcon 3? What made it a classic?
GL: The most important thing was the campaign. We were sitting
around after doing AT, and Bill Stealey had released F15 Strike Eagle.
It was the most awesome product at the time, so he had really cleaned
our clocks. So we were sitting around the room and thinking... we could
see where people were going with these games.. more planes, better
missions, improved avionics.
But what could we do that would be different than everybody else.. that
would make it special.
The concept was: let's start off, instead of building a flight sim,
let's build a simple strategy game where the flight sim is a
participant in the strategy game. Build that as a framework for both
single player and then eventually multiplayer. And that became the
foundation for most of Falcon 3 and then the Falcon 4 series.
GL: And I owe it all to Bill Stealey. The part of the story that
goes untold is that we were owned by the Maxwell organization, the
British publishing tycoon. A couple months before Falcon was to be
published, Robert Maxwell died in the middle of the Atlantic, and
basically his whole empire, like 3 billion dollars worth, went bankrupt
immediately. That meant we had no resources to publish Falcon 3.
It was Bill Stealey who then loaned us the money to get F3
published. That later turned into a contract that he could publish it
in Europe. So Bill Stealey had a lot to do with our getting Falcon 3
published, even though we were his number one competitor.
Wild! Quite a story! Ok, is Falcon 3 still your favorite, or has something else taken it's place in your heart since then?
GL: It's hard to say when we look back at all the games we have
produced and what others are doing... we look at every game, we break
it down to little pieces.. if there is redeeming value in game we look
and say, what did it do right, and what did it do wrong?
And it's hard when you create games, because you end up asking
yourself more, "What did we do wrong?" than "What did we do right?"
It's a very obsessive profession. In your mind there are a thousand
things you would do differently.
And you NEVER want your product to be released. If anybody ever offers
to a developer, "Would six more months help you?" everyone takes it.
But at some point you have to cut it off.
But I think Falcon 3 was a big achievement for all who were
involved. Frankly, the Falcon 3 team took a design that we had
submitted for a trainer, in conjunction with General Dynamics, and
submitted it to the Air National Guard as a design spec. But the ANG
came back and said that they did not think we were qualified. They said
the spec was overly ambitious and could not be accomplished by the
quality of staff we had at the time.
It was the best contract we ever lost. Six months later we
built the game, and a year later we published it. And the company that
won the contract never actually finished the cockpits!
Wow, amazing. Yeah, it's funny what stands out in my memory on
F3. I recall walking into the computer department of a London Drugs
store in Vancouver, Canada, and gawking at the hot new seventeen inch
monitors. Turns out they were running a demo of this hot new flight
simulator: Falcon 3. I was pretty impressed.
The obsessiveness is intriguing too. I think you have to be obsessive to be a sim nut.
GL: Yeah! THe equation of people to flight sims is the same one
I use for people and bass fishing. The same level of detail and
attention to their hobby and their sport. Think about the guy who goes
out and buys the latest hull, the latest composite pole, the latest
radar. Just replace this stuff with the latest TNT or Voodoo2, the
latest CPU... Just by changing one or two of the words you could
confuse one with the other very easily.
Not to mention I guess that in the fifties it was the fast
cars, the latest manifold, the hottest carburetor. Now we all sit in
front of a monitor and see how fast we can fly, and instead of the new
high rise manifold we have our hot new HOTAS.
GL: It's amazing, there are guys out there getting NT beta 2 to
run with dual processors and DX6 for Falcon, and the operating system
won't be released for another year! (laughs)
Exactly, we're obsessive! ... Were there times when you wondered if F4 would ever fly?
GL: Yeah, let me give you some background. The F4 team is very young,
many guys right out of school. The Falcon 3 team had graduated, many
from other areas of the company. All these individuals on the F4 team
were very talented, but for the most part had no experience in the game
industry at all. A couple of programmers were from a military
background. The lead engineer, Leon, had done F16 simulators and
trainers before. But really no one from the industry, most of them
directly out of school.
So they struggled. We told them your first project will be the
largest ever to be published in the industry, and you have to get this
product out, and it has to follow Falcon 3, and be better than Falcon
So, they did their best effort. There were a lot of good ideas,
but no one was really giving them direction that they needed to get the
game done. At one point we had discussions of cancel ling the project,
and just buying the rights from another game and just publishing that
sim. I had just come back from Harvard, and I sat down with the team.
The management here asked me to take a look at the game.
So I did, and I came to them and said, "There is good news and
bad news. The good news is that I believe we can have this game out by
Christmas. The bad news is that I don't know how close to Christmas,
might be right to the end. But the game is saveable and will be a great
game. But someone has to make some good decisions because this is a
very talented team.
So about eight months ago the Board of Directors gave me the
green light to take over the project. Kind of unusual, you don't
usually ask the Chairman of a publicly held corporation to take over a
project. And I took over and brought back a lot of the Falcon 3 people.
We found some of the Falcon 3 programmers, and they all worked with the
younger guys and built Falcon 4.
Leadership must be critically important in this kind of team.
Yeah, and it was a very large team. Basically, including core
engineers, supporting engineers, half a dozen artists, sound people and
video people and an army of testers. If you were to take a body count
in the building, just look at everybody that's lying on the floor
because they've been up four weeks straight, there are probably forty
Incredible... maybe the biggest single team ever! Ok, lets talk
F4. First up, will we see the high res cockpits in time for the
GL: OK, the current game that we will ship has the high res
modes but you don't get the cockpits. Which means you can't do certain
functions. But we got such a big demand on the newsgroups and on
combatsim.com... originally, that was something we were testing.. but
all our testers and various web sites were publishing pictures and
everybody really wanted it... so we put a command line switch that
allows access to higher resolutions. So we will support the doubling
mode right off the bat.
You can take the 640x480 cockpit or the 800x600 cockpit and double
pixel them. So the resolution will still be the same and you will have
accessibility to all the panels and controls. But out the window will
be the high resolution.
And then we'll start building the higher res cockpit, 1024x768. It
literally takes about forty five days to build a cockpit, there is that
much art involved. Every switch in Falcon is operable. I mean every
switch ... you can flip the switches and do all your procedures.
Everything has to be aligned, and each switch has from two to ten
animations... and all the dials have to be redone... a lot of work!
Are we going to see cockpits beyond 1024x768?
GL: Later on you will, but it will be in later revs of the game.
Great. One of the questions that I get all the time is this: Will there be a new demo?
GL: F4 has the best screen saver in our building. When everyone
goes home we always leave in running in Action Cam view. I don't know
if you have tried this, but we wrote it up in the readme.
Take F4, turn on Combat AP in the Settings (Simulation tab.. it's a
good idea to turn on Invulnerability too), and then go into the
Campaign (usually the third one because action happens very fast), take
off, and as soon as you take off turn on AP, and then go to Action Cam
view (SHF ~).. it's like watching a movie.
While we're on the topic, it would be great to be able to have
a few choices within the Action Cam view. For example, give us the
ability to filter for Enemy or Friendly action, and maybe A2A or A2G
action. And give us the option to shift to the next object.
GL: Some good ideas, and they would be easy to implement. It's
an amazing view in F4. You can have a couple hundred vehicles in the
screen at one time. If you have the horsepower, like a PII 450,
increase your settings to max and you will be amazed! Radio calls out
the wazoo, fifty tanks on the ground, SAMs flying all round, aircraft
intercepting aircraft... Just leave it running in that mode. People
here are convinced that all we need to do is a stripped down version of
just this and put it on a demo disk.
Hm. Cool idea.
Yeah, a great screen saver. It won't let you fly the game, but
you can see the war. And that's what makes Falcon 4 special over any
other product. There is a full scale war, non scripted, not staged that
we link together. You don't even have to fly, it's a great war game.
Turn on your labels with SHF L and some of the invisible action will
become more visible. It's a huge war.
Yeah, it really IS amazing. And that's also one of the
arguments for the higher res modes. It's incredible how some of this
leaps into view on a large monitor at high resolution.. visibility of
detail is increased and there is SO much happening...
But let's move on and talk about the campaign itself. One thing not
really appreciated yet is that F4 completely integrates two independent
and fully dynamic wars: an air war and a ground war. Tell us about the
thought and method behind this.
Let's move on and talk about the campaign itself. One thing not really
appreciated yet is that F4 completely integrates two independent and
fully dynamic wars: an air war and a ground war. Tell us about the
thought and method behind this.
GL: As I said earlier, what we started off with was a ground
war. The basic philosophy is that the air force is used as a means to
support the ground effort. But it's the ground war that wins or loses
the war. Basically if you don't have an army, it's very difficult to
win a war.
So what we did was we had one programmer, Kevin Klemmick, who is the
lead engineer on the entire campaign side, he hates flight sims with a
passion. Even though he grew up around airplanes and his Dad has a
plane and he used to fly with him, he likes strategy games. He was the
perfect guy. We didn't want a guy who loves flight sims, we wanted a
guy who loves strategy games.
And what Kevin did was build an entire campaign system around
the basic five circles doctrine. That is basically the political
structure, the infrastructure, moral, your army and air force and all
these assets. And he built a complete strategy war game, on par with
the best you find from SSI or any of the other classic war games by
And that is what generates all the things in the war. We
generate physical analysis of outcomes of different kinds of units. We
actually have a tool.. say, take all these F16s and MiG 29s, and put
them in statistically, what would be the results. And he feeds those
datapoints back into the campaign. And the campaign runs the complete
war. So that is number one. He writes the ground war, then figures out
how the air force would support that ground war. Then he figures out
what are the things you would do in an air war to counter a ground war.
So he builds that up in layers. And then he bridges that with the
On the simulation team we have these two terms: aggregated units, and
de-aggregated units. Aggregated units are Kevin's problems (laughs);
de-aggregated units are the sim players problem. So, you're flying
along and you will see a label out there in the distance, and then it
will jump a few pixels. When it's jumping it's probably de-aggregating
into multiple vehicles, depending on the vehicle type, it will hand off
between Kevins units and the sim units.
But what is cool about the ground war is that it is running as
long as you are in the game.
Unless you turn off time. So the moment you get in and click on
campaign and the UI comes up, the war is running. And it's running even
as the game is loading a particular mission. You can be sitting there
in the load screen and you'll hear an explosion, because your base just
got bombed. And you're tossed back out to the interface, and the UI
will ask you to choose another mission because your airplane was just
destroyed on the runway as you were waiting to fly.
It's the most amazing thing. Time matters in this game, because it was
written as a strategy based ground war first, the air war second, and
the simulation as a layer on top of that.
And this is the first military simulation on the PC with a full
blown ground war integrated with the air war, and both running
dynamically in real time.
GL: Yes. Now people will look at the ground war and see some of
the flaws, because we had to do trade-offs. For example the ground war
doesn't do collision detection, so you may see a tank drive through
another tank. But if we had to do collision detection on 100,000
vehicles it would bring your computer to it's knees. You would need a
Cray just to run the campaign.
The other thing we gave up was specular lighting. It took too
much processing power, so we fake it. We did that because we want
Kevin's campaign - outside of the flight dynamics of the aircraft - is
the most important thread. And he wrote it on a separate thread than
the rest of the game. So when I say you can run this on NT 5 beta 2,
you are actually getting the campaign on a separate thread. And that
thread will run under NT on another processor. So you can get a 20-30%
increase in performance on that system.
Wow, sounds like the basis for some incredible expandability.
Oh yeah! I'm sure when this game comes out that .. on combatsim.com, in
the bugs and the features column.. you'll have to keep adding more
pages. There is so much in this campaign, so many combinations and
permutations of different events, that we just can't track them all.
And we believe we caught most of them. But there will be idiosyncrasies
and things that people bring up, and our job now is to be as responsive
to our customers as we possibly can.
With a game of this complexity that's to be expected, so all we
can ask of you guys is that you deal with the issues that come up. The
responsiveness of yourself and your team so far is as good as we've
GL: It's funny. We've had a lot of calls about the testing
process. The way we used to do it is play the campaign a hundred or a
thousand times and then you kill all the bugs. Then you just keep doing
this until there are no more bugs.
The problem with Falcon is that to win the campaign you have to fly one
successful mission every hour (sim hours). A short war to win will take
you six days. A typical war will take you twenty to forty days. So, if
the human player actually played the whole game, that's 24 times forty,
at an average an hour a mission, that's how long it will take you to
complete one campaign. So it was not humanly possible to test out all
the combinations. We did statistical analysis in order to test the
different components and we had a couple of guys run through the entire
war, but it's just not possible to test under the old methodology here.
With that awareness of how long a campaign plays out, we want to make
an official announcement that combatsim.com will move into the pizza
and coke delivery business wherever Falcon4 is sold…
GL: (laughs) and my Engineers say, "We need some sleep, cause
as soon as the game comes out you're not gonna let us go anywhere…"
Gilman, you've kept close tabs on our forum, so what are your current priorities for enhancements?
GL: First is to ensure that any instability in the game is dealt
with. Because this is a multi-threaded game, issues of stability will
be because of the thread manager. So we're very aware of what those
issues are and every rev will make the game more stable.
Shots from the ground war.
GL: Issue number two is multiplayer. It's pretty good on the shipping
product but not to the point where I would like it to be. So over the
next forty five days, every edition will improve multiplayer. We're
doing things like compressing packets better, better smoothing
algorithm and so on , and we'll put lots of energy behind multiplayer
and multiplayer features that people want.
And the third part will be the campaign. Anything that involves
improving the campaign, AI improvements, and features that people want.
The most requested improvement at the moment is the high res cockpits, and multiplayer is our big priority.
Another one we are hearing a lot is the whole clouds and weather and wind thing. Will we see cloud layers half way through '99?
GL: The cloud debate in this company is probably the most
furious debate among the graphics guys. There's about a dozen different
ways to do volumetric clouds, and what I said was… in fact, some of our
test suites actually have volumetric clouds, but it's a bit slow.
So what I told the guys to do on the first rev of the game
was, "Look, I want volumetric clouds as much as you guys. But.. I want
the clouds to have a tactical effect in the world, both in how the AI
uses the clouds, and how it effects weapon types…you know, firing
heaters through the clouds.. being able to use the environment as part
of the context of the game. That was the highest priority.
So what we
have is the flat layer thin clouds with about a couple hundred feet of
fogging effects on either side of that. But you can still shoot and fly
directly through the holes in the clouds, and shoot it clean. And that
works very nice, because you can actually spot a plane zipping out
underneath the cloud layer through one of the holes, and zip through it
and get a missile lock and fire on him as he's going through the hole.
Whereas once the bank is between you you won't be able to lock on that
target. There are some cool things like that.
Volumetric stuff, we'll have a team messing around with the
clouds, and that will be a feature that will probably come up in the
summer when I believe that we will have machines fast enough to really
GL: The problem with too many of our end users is that they turn
everything on max. And then they complain that the game is only running
at 2 frames per second!
Too true. The positive part is that the survey we did showed the average system was a PII 300.
GL: Absolutely. The current weather has the following things:
there is a wind pattern and the clouds will move, there is wind in the
world, there is a contrail layer in the world. And all that affects the
game. If you're up there in the skies the enemy planes spot you at
fifteen miles, but if you're down in the dirt they have a very small
eyeball range because you get lost in the ground clutter.
Ah, that's why my HUD is drifting all the time! I thought it was my F22 Pro acting up again!
GL: (laughs) Yeah, your Tm stuff shouldn't drift. We wrote code to take out the spikes!
Back to multiplayer for a second, when is the planned release of the server module?
GL: Undetermined as of yet. We're in the design phase. We have
to do a costing analysis also. But it's one of the priorities, and it
will take a lot of work to do right. Stay tuned. As soon as the design
plan is finished we'll get you more information.
What is the current priority for add-on aircraft?
GL: The MiG 29 and the F18. MiG 29 we're looking at having both
the SMT, kind of the F15 variant that has the FastPack gas so it has
more range, it has all the avionics, MFDs, vs the old A model. And with
that pack we'll also do the A model, so you can fly either a NATO
(German) MiG 29 or the Soviet block MiG 29.
When I talked to Tom Nichols a few months back he talked about
naval AI expansion along with the MiG 29 game, can you tell us more
GL: We were looking at that, but we're going to reserve that
for the Bosnia affair, and we might do a navalized version. But that
will probably be a patch that ends up in our F18 game.
What's your guess on schedule for MiG 29?
GL: Under a year, hopefully much shorter but it depends on how
we have to allocate resources to support Falcon 4, and any features we
add for Falcon 4. We'd like it out before Christmas.
Is F18 concurrent in development with MiG 29?
GL: The Falcon team will split up into two teams: one team will
do MiG 29 and one team will do F18. F18 will follow MiG 29, maybe come
out three months later.
F18 will be very cool, it will be the Taiwan scenario. It takes
place four years from now where the Chinese have been building up a
bunch of Su 27s and there is a conflict over Taiwan. Taiwan flies F16s
and the US Navy will be heavily involved, maybe even Australia will be
involved, both of them fly F18s.
Are we going to see full scale carrier ops with F18?
GL: Yes. And we want to make sure that the carrier stuff is done right.
Would you do the two seat naval version?
GL: Possibly. We're in discussions right now. A lot depends on
what data we get. I don't like doing games unless I have solid data on
the aircraft. Real data, real pilots, preferably somebody who has been
in that aircraft, who continually flies the aircraft so we can check
and make sure the declassified stuff is right.
GL: It was really funny because we have a great deal of respect for the
Su27 guys. In fact the president of Mindscape is a very good friend of
mine who used to work for the Maxwells, who was basically the person
responsible for buying my company a long time ago so that we could do
the original Falcon. And you know, we laugh and we kid and talk a lot
about Falcon and Su27. And it's always interesting to watch the debates
online about who is the best.
But the guys on Falcon felt like, "Gee you know, we make very
realistic flight models and we never get any credit for that. So they
made an extra effort to make sure that all the flight model curves fit
all the flight model curves of the declassified data we have for the
And then they gave me a list of stuff!I thought when I was
going up for the check ride that I was going to have some fun, but you
know my workload was so heavy... I had to do all these things for the
programmers. I had to see how fast the accelerations were, take a look
at the flight performance curves, the deceleration curves, look at the
rudder impact. Poor Pete was going, "God! I take you up for this great
ride and all you're doing in the back of the plane is working!"
Let's talk about the weapons systems. Any surprises there for us?
GL: Surprises, no, but we've made a great effort to model the
systems and tactics realistically. And you won't see any nukes because
that would have too strong an effect on the campaign.
But in terms of general issues we also took great care to model
the workload accurately. We wanted to model the workload of the pilot
in the real F16.
For example, if you try to launch a Maverick in realistic
settings you will spend most of your time looking down in your cockpit.
And it will require you to spend a lot of time practicing so that you
can use it in the campaign. The same with the LGB. Especially when
there are MiGs and the whole world trying to stop you from hitting your
What online capabilities does F4 offer the guy with the normal 28.8 connection?
GL : Dogfight will be straightforward. He can go in there with
three or four players with no trouble. He will have a problem in
campaign, and that's the thing we want to work on with the patches, F4
requires a lot of bandwidth for the campaign. If he gets two player up
he'll be lucky in the current version, without having ISDN or some kind
But my goal over the next thirty days is to solve that problem
so that people can play 2 to 4 players in campaign. Not making any
promises right now but I think we have a good hold on what we need to
get done. But there are so many entities going back and forth in the
world, and we have to tune that.
Will that include kali?
GL: No, because we don't support IPX. But we have a team and all
they are doing is multiplayer, so you will see leaps of improvement
over the next sixty to ninety days.
Has F4 been tried with Roger Wilco or Battlefield Communicator for online voice?
GL: No, we ran out of testing time.
Tell us about the online war as it relates to joining and
leaving. Is there still transparent joining and leaving of players in
GL: Yes, if you come in you beam into an AI. And when you leave
the AI takes over. We did implement a kind of invulnerability shield as
you were beaming in so that people couldn't shoot you, before you have
fully arrived in the world. But we want to do a bit of work on this, we
may put a bit of a force field around you so that everybody knows
that's what's happening. But the debate has been that with this
approach everybody knows where to look for the new guys! (laughs) So..
we will test out the social problem here first.
On our forum you wrote that "campaign actions are different
than instant action or tactical engagement sorties in which AI pilots
never bug out." I assume that that means that AI pilots in short
tactical engagements that we create with the TE module have more
limited AI abilities. Does that also refer to mini campaigns created
with Tactical Engagement?
GL: A couple of things. What you don't get access to in
Tactical Engagement is some of Kevin's more sophisticated AI stuff,
particularly on the ground. The tool is very hard to use that he uses
to create the world. You can tell.. for example, two army units to run
and take that city over there, and they will go off and do that. But
they won't have the same sort of options that the dynamic generating
unit in the campaign has access to.
So it doesn't understand the multiple strategic values of things other
than what the player applies to it. There is no overarching doctrine
for them to follow other than "you go here and take that." So Tactical
Engagement will be relatively simplistic.. from OUR point of view. The
average user will say, "wow, this is better than anything else out
there in the market place." But what you won't get is the level of
sophistication of 100,000 lines of code that is behind the war.
Shots from the ground war.
At the AI level, Tactical Engagement which is multiple missions uses
the same AI for the aircraft. If you do sorties, which is to design a
single mission, then the AI "bug-out" code is turned off, because what
a lot of players wanted to do is create a MiG 29 with guns only up
against an F16. Well the AI in the campaign would go, "I've only got a
gun, there is an F16 with a radar lock on me, I'm outa here!" The
problem with that in the sortie design missions is that everyone would
complain there is a bug in the game.
So what we did in sortie is say, "You never bug out til you
die, or til you kill the enemy." We put that into the brain. It's kind
of funny, even in dogfight… multiplayer dogfight or single player
dogfight… and have like fifty planes in the air at one time. And make
them guns only. So you hear these calls… "I'm outa here," or "RTB,"
that's the AI pilot wanting to go home. But the code says, "No, you
can't go home," so the pilots stay in the fight. It's fun to watch in
That reminds me, will we hear radio calls in action view?
GL: Yes, you'll hear the same calls you'll hear in the real
aircraft. We also do distance cuing on the radio calls. So the farther
away the call is from you, it will degrade in quality. This is pretty
important when you hear fifty radio calls and you can't tell which one
is talking to you because everyone is at the same volume level.
Yeh I've heard that. Excellent! All this contributes very nicely to
situational awareness. One of the strengths of F4 is that this kind of
attention to detail contributes to immersion.. the sense that you are
in a real physical world.
GL: Yes. It's a very big product. And again, one of those
things we said online…. I know there will be issues with this product,
and that's one of the reasons we did the binders. We kept saying to
ourselves, "Our most loyal fans are the ones who run out and buy the
first version. But the first version is always, despite your best work,
has the most issues.
So the marketing department and the development were sitting
around and saying, "Can't we create a situation where we reward people
for buying the first version?" And that's where the binder concept came
out. Let's give them a binder, just like the real air force has, in
which people can hot sheet in a new sheet, and they can download
changes and additions. It's a cool feature, expensive for us to do, but
it's our way of rewarding those who buy early. That led to a 200,000
run on the binders.
A very cool idea. Wouldn't be surprised to see it copied. Then
again, if it's very expensive maybe not! But awesome idea for the loyal
fans to be sure, to actually have an upgradeable manual. These guys are
in for the long haul and I'm sure this is going to be greatly
Kind of interesting, as I read the wish lists in our forum I
find myself smiling. Many of the atmospheric type features people are
asking for are already in F4, we just haven't had time to mention them
GL: I know! It's really satisfying to the engineers. They go, "Aha! I already got that!"
heheh! Thanks for your time Gilman. Are there any final comments you would like to make?
GL: Two things I'd like to say. One, players can go to combatsim.com as well as Falcon4.com.
Falcon4.com will grow and will be a fully supported site. It's not set
up so much for marketing as support and for people who need more
But they can get just as much information on your site because
combatsim.com is one of the sites that we are going to fully support.
We want to get people into places where we can get them all the
information. Combatsim.com is the unofficial Falcon4 site, and
falcon4.com will be the place for instructional information and
Pete Bonnani writes a lot of columns, and other F16 pilots will
contribute columns on Falcon4.com as well. This information will be
interesting but also very useful to get the most out of Falcon 4,
especially for campaign type missions.
The last thing is, I hope the users will be patient with us,
it's a huge product, and we're going to be as responsive as humanly
Yeah, I appreciate that. You guys have set a new standard for
support, and Pete's writing is excellent. I've read the first piece and
it's helpful. All the best, look forward to the growth of the F4 world.
Falcon 4.0 is produced by Gilman Louie and Steve Blackenship.