User Reviews (31 - 37 of 37)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

Not up to today's standards

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 14
Date: June 28, 2000
Author: Amazon User

Compared to other simulations that were on the market when Falcon came out, this game truely did not measure up. Especially after Jane's F/A-18. It was and still is buggy and slow running. Look at F/A-18, which runs beautifully and has crashed maybe once on me. Even Jane's F-15 with its older graphics is better and less buggy. Instead of this game, look into spending your money elsewhere...on something like Jane's F/A-18, or F-15.

A distinguished piece of work

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: February 16, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This is a wonderful, wonderful simulation. Hugely ambitious, it was released a bit too early with too many bugs. The patch (available for download free from the company's site) fixes any of the problems I found.

One of the most incredible simulation experiences ever. The fully dynamic campaign is a wonder to behold. The user manual is excellent.

Only one (very minor) criticism: the music on the setup screens seems to be a derivation of the guitar music they had on Top Gun, which is somewhat obnoxious. However, you can turn this off.

I would rate this game a 9.9 out of 10. Outstanding in almost all respects. I wish all sims were made this way.

Stunning Graphics, and realism

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: April 20, 2003
Author: Amazon User

First the bad news, the missions are slow to load, probably due to the sheer ammount of graphics to be loaded. Also, the enemy AI pilots don't seem to manuver like a real pilot would - there are no true manuvers. With closely matched aircraft, both planes end up turning in a verticle circle until one can fire on the other.
The good news is that the graphics are as good as anything I've ever seen. I love the interactivity with AWACS, ground control, and refueling tankers (although I still haven't managed to succesfully refuel). It's one of the best modern combat flight simulations on the market, and worth every penny.

JUST GOT THE GAME!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: March 15, 2000
Author: Amazon User

When I first opened the box I looked inside figuring I would find a CD and a registration card. Only to my surprise to find the longest manual I've seen. (besides my ACM Air Combat Maneuvering book) Being an amateur at the game, I tossed the manual on the ground (A BIG mistake) and proceeded to install the game. After a minute or two on installation I began to play. Wanting to get right to the action, I went straight to Campaigns and passing all the crucial training missions. 15 seconds into the flight I got 2 Migs on my 6 and no wingman. After lasting for about ten minutes I had the most beautiful shot with a AIM-9L and right as I prepare to fire and get the cleanist shot, I get warning signs lighting up everywhere. The next thing you know, other pilots are laughing at me. So my advise to you, read the manual and don't get overconfident cause then you'll be nothing buy smoke and a hole in the ground.

A awsome sim but hard!

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: February 27, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I've played a lot of flight sims, but Falcon gains most of my respect and time. Falcon 4.0 truely lives up to its name of the most realistic flight sim around. The game gives you an adrenaline because of the realism and the power of a fighter in your hands. Excellent graphics and sounds. Physics is without question the best ever. The downside to Falcon is that it takes a lot of time and energy to learn. Besides having a 600 page manual(which you have to read in order to play), the game is hard to get used to. Especially landing, which took me a long time to learn. Bottm line: once in a life time game, but be prepared to be irratated

Super realistic! The best flight sim!

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: April 19, 2001
Author: Amazon User

This game is definately the mother of all flight sims. It is totally realistic in all aspects. The cockpit insturments are so cool, as is the dolby surround sound. This goes on top of all of my flight sims. A definate must-buy for all fighter plane enthusiasts like myself!

King of Flight Sims

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: May 02, 2007
Author: Amazon User

This extremely comprehensive and demanding flight-sim appeared back in about 2000 and, after release looked like it was in trouble, dogged by both huge (then) system requirements and numerous bugs. Based on the F-16 (and following a string of hardcore sims going back to the original Falcon of 1987!), "F4" had been awaited breathlessly by fans, and arrived with numerous bugs. MPS, F4's publisher suddenly announced that they were dropping the sim, paving the way for F4's nearest competitor, "Jane's F/A-18" to become the top game for fans of highly detailed and demanding ("hardcore") flight-sims. By 2002, with the stream of flight-sims having stagnated, any good 3-year old sim still has much to offer - but the sim to beat isn't necessarily "F/A-18" (a great sim to be sure) but F4, rescued and brought to beautiful useability by a legion of on-line sim-fanatics. Having gained access to F4's source-code, these fans have crafted their own software called "Service Packs" which partly patch but mostly expand the original game. I'll keep this review confined to the original, though. In short - F4 still has much to offer.

F4 is focused on the F-16, the USAF's premiere multi-role fighter. Though F-16 sims have come and gone in hordes, F4 never lets you forget that the proof is in the execution. The flight model is demanding: slippery along each of the major directional axes and, for a light fighter, can lose energy and get heavy really quick. The avionics are also comprehensive - think that "multi-mode radar" means "air-to-air" and "air-to-ground"? Here, you'll be fiddling with modes even in "pure" situations (in which you'll be either primed for counter-air or ground-strike missions) learning the nuances of "range-while-search" or "track-while-search" modes while hunting MiGs. The range of weapons is wider than on older games - echoing the F-16's maturation from a small jet that could only fight with iron-dumb bombs and short range missiles like the Sidewinder to a more complex machine geared for "smart" bombs, anti-radiation missiles and AMRAAM in night or adverse weather. The enemies aren't slouches either (although that may have much to do with my low-grade skills).

F4's campaign is set in a futuristic North Korea (making it more topical than "Jane's F/A-18" which has you flying off Russia's arctic frontier). An elaborate setup menu allows you to tailor realism and controllability. My Thrustmater WCS/FCS setup was recognized here as quickly as on "Jane's F/A-18" (unsurprising since they both have to run through Windows's control panel - but thank heaven for small miracles nonetheless) though F4's key-mapping editor seems more stubborn than that of the other game. While the game ran well normally using my GeForce3 card, the menu appears to offer support only for 3DFx cards and not OpenGL, the API for that GeForce graphics-acceleration. Unfortunately, F4 was one of those great games that appeared immediately before the end of 3dFx's reign as the king of graphics acceleration. Sound was also an issue - with the sim modeling a great range of sounds (from the screams and roars of your engine down to the distinctive howls, clicks and whistles of each type's fire-control radar), but also suffering a lot of stuttering. Attention to detail is magnificent. Control surfaces and engine nozzles are convincingly animated and the F-16's trademark shoulder vortices appear in high-speed climbs. You can even customize the skins on both your airplane and those of your enemies. I gave mine the Israeli-style camo paint job that appeared in the "Iron Eagle" movies (now there's an idea for a sim, certainly one that can't be more unrealistic than the flick it was based on). The beauty is that, while F4 remains cutting edge by virtue of how far ahead of its time it was (and how few new sims have come to the market since then), the faster computers that can run F4 more comfortably are cheaper and more widely available.

SYSTEM ISSUES: I "flew" my F4 on a Pentium4 running at 4Ghz. XP accepted this sim out of the box (something else that "Jane's F/A-18" couldn't quite claim). Performance was largely smooth but became noticeably choppy at times even on simple "instant action" flights. In more elaborate game play - especially during dynamic campaigns - F4 reveals itself an incredible hog for just about every resource your computer has: the CPU, main memory, graphics memory etc. Worse, F4 suffers an acute "memory leakage" problem: as you'd expect, it takes a lot of RAM to "create" each of those enemy tanks and soldiers and endow them with AI (but not so much that they don't just turn north and run for cover), but the program doesn't de-allocate or give that RAM back as quickly as it takes it away, which means that your campaigns will bog down really quickly.

In short - if you want a truly hardcore sim, one that will make you forget your machine's obsolescence, consider what your system offers but also remain informed about what each sim's fan-base offers. With tech support becoming less supportive for such games, F4 and its competitors from 1999 will always rely on the perseverance of fans to adress their flaws. For either Jane's or F4 you'll need a machine with an even 1Ghz of processing muscle. OpenGL owners should consider F/A-18 (again - no slouch), but those owning late-generation graphics cards based on 3DFx's "Voodoo" technology should get F4.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 

Actions