User Reviews (1 - 11 of 36)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

DOES NOT WORK ON XP

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 4 / 5
Date: February 02, 2005
Author: Amazon User

I was so excited after reading great reviews when I found that I had it, I popped it in and readied myself for action. After installing it, I opened it and it says that "Janes FA-18 Simulator doesnt work on your operating system" (Windows XP)
Does anyone know how I can make it work?? I would greatly appreciate it.

Isn't worth anything

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 12
Date: February 12, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This game is a major upset.I bought it immediatly when it cameout and played it twice.It was suppose to beat falcon 4.0 but it isn'teven close.Falcon 4.0 is the closest game to real life.When i played f-18 the handleing of the aircraft was inpossible to real life,it moves way to easy.Also the cockpit is a disgrace of a plane,it is so horrible.I just wish i could get my money back because it was a major waste.If your looking for a great flight sim i suggest falcon 4.0 because it is so accurate and graphic,eventhough you need the patches.The game is way ahead of its time. END

DO NOT GET IT

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 19
Date: August 29, 2000
Author: Amazon User

Do not get f/A-18. The views are all stupid. The grapics Are very Bad. IF you want to get a High quality game Get U.S. Air Force better known as USAF

A Step Backwards?

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 13 / 14
Date: January 21, 2000
Author: Amazon User

After playing FA/18, I expected to see an awesome addition to the excellence achieved by USAF. FA/18 doesn't come close. The graphics seem to be equal to some shareware products, compared to USAF, and the game doesn't capture the feeling of realism that USAF did. I guess if it had come out before USAF, it probably would have impressed me more. It appears to be F15 reincarnated, staged in a different theatre. The carrier take offs and landings are ok, but even the older Microprose F14 Fleet defenders' carrier activity appeared more exciting. It's definately not what I expected to take the stage after USAF. I was somewhat of a disappointed to me. If you're just dying to catapult from a carrier, at least wait several months, this way you can pick it up in a clearance bin for $19.99.

Not up to Jane's usually high standards.....................

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 5 / 7
Date: February 04, 2000
Author: Amazon User

I had expected something that would be on par with Longbow 2, F-15, and possibly Falcon 4.0. But, I think this product still has a long way to go. The cockpit detail doesn't even come close to Falcon 4.0, the documentation is incomplete, and the training missions are really poor. Basically, you are told what 2 or 3 keystrokes to do to get an air-air or air-ground kill and then you are finished with the training mission. Then, you are told what further things you can do with a "did you know...." screen after you exit the training mission. But, you are not told how to use some of the more advanced avionics features. In fact, you really have to dig through the very small manual to find out how to use the avionics equipment, and even then you may not find what you need. I hope that Jane's is working on a patch real soon, because it is definitely not state-of-the-art and is definitely not for the hard-core flight sim fan. Shame on you, Jane's, you have sold out to the marketing suits.

Jane's F/A-18

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 1 / 3
Date: October 28, 2001
Author: Amazon User

I bought this game because so many people in virtual squadrons were transitioning to it from Graphic Simulations' "F/A-18:Korea". This is a very realistic simulator in terms of flight model, carrier ops, etc. The graphics of the outside world is superb. But I have one gripe-- I'm extremely disappointed in the graphics detail of the cockpit. Yes, it is a 3D cockpit, but other F/A-18 sims have done better on the rendering. And when I play the game, I'm constantly reminded of the fact as I fly the plane, as I don't use external views. (Real pilots don't use external views)

The good and BAD

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 5
Date: February 17, 2001
Author: Amazon User

F/A 18 is a good game, but it won't work with windows ME.

It's a good thing my Moms computer works with it though. If you have Windows me and F/A 18 works with it, tell me by writing a review!!

Awesome avionics - at a price.

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 24 / 24
Date: January 20, 2000
Author: Amazon User

This "game" features incredible avionics and weapons modeling of the U.S. Navy/Marines newest attack aircraft, the F/A-18 E Hornet.

If you've got the hardware - and I mean a SERIOUS system such as a 600+ mHz PIII or Athalon, go for it. Otherwise, hold off until Jane's either optimizes the code or you get a faster machine. Even on my Coppermine with a GeForce DDR, this thing can CRAWL during a campaign.

The graphics are nothing to write home about (not as good as Hornet Korea, a 3-year-old Hornet sim, IMO), but if you can get past that, there's some serious fun to be had delving into the many weapons systems and comms. To be fair the game does have good weather and lighting effects, although nothing that hasn't already been done on non-flightsims for a few years.

The manual is sparse. At only 200 pages, it doesn't begin to cover the avionics systems in depth. You'll have to find your own way or resort to reading newsgroups.

There are also LOTS of complaints about freezing on the newsgroups, so expect to have to wait for a patch before it's truly playable for the long-haul.

Would I recommend it? Yes. It's not the best flightsim I've ever seen, but it's close. If you're new to hardcore flightsims (anything non-Novalogic should qualify), and are looking for an entry level sim into the genre, start with Hornet Korea and then move up to Jane's F/A-18 after you understand what it's all about. Just keep in mind, his thing WILL bring your system to its knees, and if you don't have the hardware, stay well away.

below Jane's standards

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 8 / 9
Date: May 31, 2000
Author: Amazon User

Expected more from this title; being spoiled be the previous Jane's releases /my most favorite sim is probably Jane's WW2 Fighters/.

I just can't believe that they slightly re-polished their 4 years old F-15, removed Glide support, and put it on the market with words "the next generation graphics" on the box; that's pretty deceiving at best.

Graphics are very tired, with exception of some atmospheric effects and storms. Explosions are far below average, 3D objects modeling /with exception of your F-18/ is very simple.

There comes the question; how come that with such a poor graphics the game crawls even on relatively fast machines /heard about guys with PIII600's and Athlon 700's having problems/much exceeding Jane's recommended setup, not mentioning required one ? Probably just bad code, which is not optimized enough. You're in hardware 3D, but it seems like you almost do a poor software rendering instead.

So you'll end up with choppy gameplay and miserable visuals at max. resolution 1024*768. Color depth is not selectable, and is obviously average 16-bit. But there are not many colors in the game anyway, so you don't have to worry about that part. The game can be choppy in lower res as well, so it's no need to run anything less than max res and max detail. This is definitely not a way to go in the year 2000.

Positive stuff: Weapons systems and avionics are accurate, with many sub-menus, a lot to learn and to play with, but don't expect much help from the thin manual /to have Falcon4 manual on your desk can be handy here, since systems operate similarly/. There is a decent scenario editor available in the game as well. Overall atmosphere is, surprisingly, pretty OK , I guess it corresponds with that part of the world by Murmansk, Northern Russia. Also, the game didn't lock up or freeze once, and missions load time is very short /since there isn't much to load really/.

Hopefully Jane's will release another patch /1.01F is out now/, addressing at least the framerate problem. Until then, unless you have a very fast PC, would recommend to stay away from.

Tested on well tuned PII-400MHz/128MB RAM/AGP ViperV770 TNT2-32MB. /Jane's recommends P350/64megs/16megs 3D card/.

Jane's Only Short-Coming

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 6 / 6
Date: March 12, 2000
Author: Amazon User

When I read that this awesome new product by Electronic Arts was coming out, I couldn't help but be excited, knowing, that it HAS to be greater than USAF. I was wrong. It installed quickly and disapppointed me even quicker, realizing that I just bought the F15 all over again, just a different plane, different theater. This is fine... ...if it was 1997. The overall graphics are okay and the carriers landings are an improvement over other flight simulations, but the cockpit graphics, flight manual and aircraft handling are upsetting, letting you know that this latest edition to Jane's was a rushed job. My recommendation is to hold off on getting this, look at the number of disappointed flight sim jockeys and wait for Jane's to get their act together before trying to sell us a $40 dessert after a full course meal of an excellent, well-reviewed "USAF".

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 Next 

Actions