Falcon 4.0 - The Game Which Refuses to Die

jonerik writes "Today's Boston Globe has this article on the worldwide cult following behind Falcon 4.0, a 1998 flight simulator program which was discontinued by its manufacturer (Hasbro Interactive) the following year. Shortly after it was dropped, someone leaked the game's source code and before you could say 'open source' Falcon 4.0 buffs around the world began fixing bugs in the game and adding new features. Enter Claude Cavanaugh, who approached the current owners of Falcon 4.0 (Atari, which is currently owned by a French company formerly known as Infogrames) with the idea of incorporating the hackers' improvements into Falcon 5.0. Although Falcon 5.0 won't be appearing anytime soon due to financing issues, happily Xicat Interactive will be releasing Falcon 4.0 Gold: Operation Infinite Resolve in April, which will include all of the upgrades originally intended for 5.0."

Re:MOD ARTICLE UP

[antime]

It hasn't really. The code was leaked and many people are very unhappy about it. If you go to a flight sim board and ask for the sources you'll probably be on the receiving end of their equivalent of a kickban. Instead, a handful of people (implicitly or explicitly approved by the then owners of the game - this was before Cavanaugh bought the game) worked on the game in a very much closed group and released patches, improving the game quite a bit.

The closed development was partly motivated by the fact that

Bravo to Atari/Infogrames

[pashdown]

Its nice to see a behemoth friendly to open sourcing commercially dead games, even if this one happened inadvertently and in the worst way.

Now if they'll only consider doing it for some of their other properties (hint hint, "Total Annihilation").

Re:Bravo to Atari/Infogrames

[DrDoombender]

I don't think that they are really "friendly" to the idea of their source code being open. I think it may be simply a matter of economics. If the game is seen as unprofitable, its pointless to go for lawsuits. How would you justify that to your share holders? Remember, Infogrames, Atari and Hasbro were all part of a large lawsuit against various game makers (E.G: Andre LaMothe head of Xtreme games LLC) because they were "infringing" on copyrighted titles. Why did they sue? because they thought releases of

Re:Bravo to Atari/Infogrames

[Recoil_42]

its called Unreal Annihilation [tauniverse.com]

and just fyi, Atari/Infogrames sold/leased the TA license to Phantagram Interactive, so the sequel in name is coming very soon.

Chris Taylor (the original designer) is also working on a spiritual successor, but that will come after Dungeon Siege 2 is released.

I feel like a fool!

[Palverone]

I never knew this! After buying Falcon 4.0 (the special edition with the 3-ring binder manual) and getting so frustrated with the bugs, destroyed all evidence and moved on (Thank goodness for NovaLogic) it's good to know that things happened the way they were, but I still won't give up my copy of BF1942 w/the Desert Combat mod!

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Battlefield: Vietnam

[UserChrisCanter4]

Fire. Spend 30 seconds uncapping powder horn, loading powder, loading musket ball. Remove ramrod, push ball down, lift musket, fire dead on shot at enemy. Musket ball loses accuracy at 40 yards and veers off into the unkown.

Repeat above process maybe 20 times or so, until you run out of powder or musket balls. Spend rest of match attempting to bayonett enemy. Get bayonnetted. Wound is minor but becomes infected. Have limb amputated.

Respawn in next map, get mowed down by cannon because you can't break rank.

Now I can't say I wouldn't play an RTS (or preferrably, a turn-based strategy game) set in the Civil War or Revolutionary War (I know there have been several good ones, but nothing lately that implements nicer 3D graphics and the accompanying terrain systems they afford), but any FPS set pre-WW I will either bite because the designers try to retain some semblance of realism, or be so ludicrously unrealistic that the setting would be pointless. Plus, do we really want to encourage a mad rush for the horses at the beginning of the match ("D00D... that horse was mine!")?

Re:Battlefield: Vietnam

[Deflagro]

What about "The Spanish Inquisition"? No one ever expects it!
But really, that would be one hell of a game. "Say you love God, primate...say it, say it!!"
OR something like the Salem Witch Trials...that might be too easy tho. "What proof do you have, sirrah?" "My neighbor looked at me funny!" "Then he shall be tested!!"
Anyways....i'm done.

You are right!

[John Harrison]

Until recently, war just wasn't that fun.

Re:You are right!

[__aatgod8309]

Sure it's fun [purplesensi.co.uk]... (Just listen to the title song [purplesensi.co.uk])

Re:Battlefield: Vietnam

[Pxtl]

Well, it could be good - near as I can tell, it with the exception of breaking rank, the rest of it (firing once every 30 seconds and sitting out when you die) describes CounterStrike (another game that compromised on realism just enough to be both convincing and reasonably fun). Hell, half of the CS players love it when it decays into a knife fight anyways. And you can block with a musket, so it might be a little better than "stab, stab, stab" in a bayonette fight. And lets not forget the officers and cavalry with their horses and revolvers and sabres.

Besides, naval combat of the era could be fun too - with cannons and boarding actions and landing and suchlike. Good bloody fun.

Battlefield: 1812 might actually make for a good game. Personally, I wouldn't like it, as I don't like CS, but others do. Depending on what era you set it, you get different options on gameplay - earlier means more focus on horses, swordplay and cannons (cool) - later means more focus on rifle muskets, revolvers, and early machine guns (also cool). And there are no shortages of wars to choose from - Napoleonic, Revolutionary, 1812, French Revolution, etc. A whole era of underrepresented warfare - we basically ignore everything from between the invention of the musket and the invention of the assault rifle.

BTW, WWI is also sorely underrepresented. I'd like a WWI game as you could do the early war where there was more than just 2 factions and finally have something more then axis vs allies.

Re:Battlefield: Vietnam

[Junior J. Junior III]

In CounterStrike, you can shoot full-auto. It's just that the opportunities to fire may only come every 30 seconds, and if you mash the trigger you'll run out of ammo before you ever see anyone.

In a pre-WWI game, you would have plenty of opportunities to fire more than once every 30 seconds in a typical full-on battle, but your weapon wouldn't support much more than a shot every 20-30 seconds. The weapons back then were single-shot and you had to manually reload essentially by assembling the bullet on t

Re:Battlefield: Vietnam

[taion]

The Battlegrounds mod for HL is set during the Revolutionary War. It's definitely a very different style of gameplay, but it's a fun change of pace.

Falcon 4 Unified Team

[aurum42]

The Falcon 4 Unified Team [frugalsworld.com] released several updates to the original Falcon 4.0, called "Superpaks", and additional theatres (the original game was set in the Korean theatre). The updates range from new textures and flight model improvements, to completely new aircraft and weaponry. An amazing accomplishment, all in all.

Of course, I didn't have the time to go out and equip myself with all the flight sim paraphernalia (rudder pedals, joysticks and so on), so I haven't really had a chance to explore the game in detail, but it looks really fun. I was more used to EF2000 (a EuroFighter 2000 sim from the UK, which was great fun) which had less steep entry requirements, but if I ever find the time to explore simming in detail, Falcon 4 + SP4 would be the way to go - judging from all the comments by real fighter pilots, it's the ultimate flight sim.

Check the CD

[wikthemighty]

...did you check the CD?

My version came with the book that was only about 1/3 there, rest were stored on the CD in PDF format I think.

Re:Check the CD

[Lazyhound]

Awesome, thanks.

Falcon 5.0

[RealityMogul]

So if Falcon 5.0 also going to be 5 years late?

Re:Falcon 5.0

[WasterDave]

Duke Falcon Forever?

Dave

Enlightened

[Craig Maloney]

Now, if they'd release the changes with the source code as well, THAT would be a story in itself.

so lemme git this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone leaks the source code for a product that that the original company can no longer support. OS geeks find and fix the bugs and produce new features, now some other company will be making money by packaging the fixed/patched/upgraded game. And this is good how?

Re:so lemme git this straight

[spitzak]

The original company is going to have to contact any of the authors and get their permission to use the code. It is possible that all the code was submitted with a GPL type license in which case the company could just open source or otherwise obey this license, however I find that doubtful.

Since they have to get permission from everybody, this can't harm anybody.

Re:so lemme git this straight

[dark_panda]

The original company still owns the copyright, and the source code was technically stolen and never meant to be open source in the first place. So I'm assuming that the company that owns that copyright can do pretty much whatever they want with it, modifications and all.

It pretty much goes without saying, but IANAL, so I could be totally wrong here. Someone with more legal knowledge want to clear things up a bit?

J

Re:so lemme git this straight

[shaitand]

You are wrong, nobody can distribute the original copyrighted code, but if you modify it or write additional code YOU own the copyright, not the original copyright holder. At that point you have to work something out with them or your code simply goes into the bit bucket archive.

Re:so lemme git this straight

[spitzak]

Wrong, the authors, despite having violated your copyright, still have copyright over their modifications. Without some sort of negotiation nobody can legally distribute the merged work.

I almost wish there wasn't a new publisher...

[Abraxis]

The SuperPak team was doing amazing stuff until they got slapped by a cease-and-desist from the new publisher after they bought the rights.

I think I have more faith in the SuperPak team than in the new developer, who thus far has given the community nothing but thus far unfulfilled promises...

That being said, I hope the upcoming games are yet another improvement on the best and most realistic jet combat flight sim out there...

Long live Falcon.

F4 SP3

[runlvl0]

Yikes!

You had me scared for a second there; you know that the SuperPaks and BMS [benchmarksims.com] mods/patches are still available here [simmersworld.com], right? I see that the last SP, SP3, was released in 2002, so I guess that that's what you meant. I just applied it to my own F4 install and -- WOW!

"...Ignore the rants, the raves and bitches,
Just give us all a lot of switches.
This one to pull.
This one to push.
This one for firmness under tush.
Switches to start.
Switches to stop.
A switch so my load won't prematurely drop.
This wil

Now if they could only do the same for...

[b0r0din]

Bug Rigs [slashdot.org]...

But seriously, while there are security issues involved, I don't think it would be the worst idea in the world to submit a game to an open source or expert group prior to release to examine the source code and tweak game design for many companies. Obviously, NDAs abound, but there are worse things in the world than releasing an awful, awful game. As always, money is the underlying factor. But look at Daikatana. They could have used some independant observers when they released that atrocity.

The enormity of Falcon 4.0

[AvantLegion]

I don't think most gamers realize that Falcon 4.0 is one of the current crowning achievements in all of electronic gaming.

It is the most intricate, complex, massive, and realistic simulation ever released to the gaming public. There is no second place - whatever second place is is a galaxy away. The fact that this game was achieved in 1998 is still mind-boggling. Here we are in 2004, and no simulation has even attempted to do what Falcon does, let alone tried and fell inevitably short.

Unlike Daikatana and (probably) Duke Nukem Forever, Falcon 4.0's endless years in development created a true achievement. The game was flawed - oh, there were bugs, and things to fix, which is where all this open source development is happening - but it's also a major testament to home computing power. It is what gaming should stand up and point to as, "this is what we are capable of". It's awful close to bringing military-use simulations into the home. Almost scarily so, as the game essentially teaches you how to pilot a true blue F-16.

Re:The enormity of Falcon 4.0

[zero_offset]

That's because no game dev shop has ever been willing to produce a "game" which is so stupendously difficult to learn and play. If I wanted that level of realism, I would have joined the Air Force.

Re:The enormity of Falcon 4.0

[MouseR]

no game dev shop has ever been willing to produce a "game" which is so stupendously difficult to learn

Falcon is no game. It's a simulator. Compare MicroSlush Flight Simulator (add weaponry and far more realism).

Oppose Starfighter.

Re:The enormity of Falcon 4.0

[BJZQ8]

I will readily admit that F4 was the deepest sim I've ever used...but then again, the ability to turn everything off, start in the air, and run around blasting everything in sight was still there. But the point of the original poster was that this was a monumental achievement; I can remember playing the first F4 "demo" way back in 1996...it completely swamped my 3D-less Pentium 100, but I knew there was something good there. Today, with my 2200 MHz computer, it is no less enjoyable. Remember what kind of

Re:The enormity of Falcon 4.0

[bozoman42]

I can't do it justice in a simple reply, but you should try Lock On: Modern Combat, the successor to Flanker 2.0. As far as flight simulators, Flanker 2.0 (and moreso the 2.5 patch) was the Russian counterpart to Falcon 4.0, although lacking in immersiveness in a campaign.

LOMAC takes all that and builds on it an amazing and modern graphic engine, even further improved flight physics (beyond the already stock-Falcon quality physics in Flanker), and allows you to fly eight such highly detail aircraft--Su25,

Falcon 4.0 is still amazing

[cavemanf16]

I have a 1.33GHz Athlon, an nVidia GeForceFX 5600, and the bare essentials (crappy joystick) to run Falcon 4.0 (which I bought the week it was first released). I can tell you that my computer STILL struggles with the graphics engine if I crank everything all the way up. This game was completely ground-breaking in terms of realism when it first came out, and it is still an amazingly detailed game. It has a pretty steep learning curve (expect to do about 40 hours of flight training just to fly the plane properly in easy combat situations), but it has a truly robust combat 'theatre' mode where your missions directly affects (or indirectly affects, depending on the situation) the overall campaign to neutralize the enemy forces. The 'net connection code still remains a rather pathetic process of finding players online, but I haven't played with that in a couple years so the hackers may have made a lot of improvements over the years.

The AI is pretty advanced too. Former and then-current F-16 fighter pilots test flew the crap out of the game engine before it was released as well as acted as a big part of the development process, so you know this sim is realistic.

I should reload this game and play with it on WinXP (if I can) again. If you want to see your fancy video card put out some amazing in-game 3D graphics, load up Falcon 4.0.

If only they could release a ground war FPS game on par with Falcon 4.0, I'd be in gaming heaven.

Re:Falcon 4.0 is still amazing

[Lazyhound]

It works perfectly in WinXP, even without patching.