"Golden Age" of flight sims?

[SharpeXB]

41 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Do the inflation conversion math as much as you want on harware prices, but there is no way you can convince yourself that a decently good CPU, MOBO, RAM, GPU and PSU had the prices then that we pay today.

Here’s the 1987 computer you were playing Strike Eagle on. $3,500 in today’s money. Same price as a gaming PC today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga

I never considered personal computers to be worthwhile back then. That woulda been over a whole month’s pay for me.

Edited July 24, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

27 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Yet, such combos were good for the period and we didn't feel we needed $600 HOTAS to be happy, like we do these days.

That's because there was nothing else available. I had my CH HOTAS for over a decade, and it was good for everything from the original X-wing to DCS. I could've kept using it even now (especially since build quality on CH kit was second to none), it's just that Winwing kit I have now is better. Nothing forces you to get the $600 kit, good quality older gear.

I think the thing back then was how quickly things were moving forward in the classic era. Today, it takes years to model an aircraft to an adequate level of quality, back then it wasn't nearly as hard. The barrier to entry for what passed for a flight sim was lower, and consequently, a lot more companies made them. Today, only four remain, two civilian sims and one combat sim, plus one sim-adjacent combat game that's for all intents and purposes competing in the same market. Barrier to entry for simulating even a single aircraft to modern standards is massive, not to mention developing an engine capable of simulating the rest of the battlefield. There's also not much room for innovation, given that the genre which is supposed to essentially converge towards reality.

[SharpeXB]

This is why computer games had no appeal to me back then. This vast mismatch between the cover art and the actual game. Look at the box, wow! A fighter jet, cool!

But then here’s the actual game

 

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Here’s the 1987 computer you were playing Strike Eagle on. $3,500 in today’s money. Same price as a gaming PC today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga

I never considered personal computers to be worthwhile back then. That woulda been over a whole month’s pay for me.

 

Nope, I was playing it on a used 386 PC (or was it 486? ...can't recall) bought second hand for $300 or so at the time (1991, I think?).  

Remember, the fast pace of computers progress also meant that there were stores buying older computers, and re-selling complete machines second hand (receipt, warranty and all) at a fraction of their cost when bought new at their launch. People were constantly upgrading, so a pretty nice recycle of PCs happened all around. Those stores pretty much stop exhisting in the late 1990s, at least in my area.
Also "the last years hardware" was much, much cheaper to buy than today (that was the price of constant progress! hehe) and that would do just fine for quite sometime still, regardless of the constant leaps that were, indeed, a lot more pronounced then.
Albeit becoming older PCs much sooner than nowadays, a lot could still do the purposes for sim/games, such as those from Microprose, all relevant in the period (Strike Eagle II was launched for DOS in 1989, two years before I first ran it). 
Having experienced all things PC for more than three decades, I think we had that part a bit better those days (okay, we now have EBAY and etc, but not same thing) and also a lot worse in others (such as fast obsolescence).

Edited July 24, 2023 by LucShep

[LucShep]

On 7/24/2023 at 9:23 PM, SharpeXB said:

This is why computer games had no appeal to me back then. This vast mismatch between the cover art and the actual game. Look at the box, wow! A fighter jet, cool!

But then here’s the actual game

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-bNrcfC6qg

True, but was still a great sim for that time.

Look at what came just two years later, in 1991.....  
 

And two years later, in 1993.... 
 

And other two years later, in 1995....  
 

And another two years later, in 1997... 
 

And also in 1997................ the familiarity is undeniable  
 

And a year after, in 1998..... 
 

And, of course, couldn't be without this one, launched in 2003  
 

 
The progress and variety in that decade is admirable, you must admit.  And there are so many more flight sim titles (and more vids) that one could fill here.

The whole 1990s to early 2000s were such a good time for sims, so much nostalgia looking at those.

Edited July 28, 2023 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

Nope, I was playing it on a used 386 PC (or was it 486? ...can't recall) bought second hand for $300 or so at the time (1991, I think?).

Sure but just pointing out that computers of the past weren’t all cheap. An original Mac was $7,000 in 1984. A new IBM 486 like I had at the office was $2,000-$3,700. Really the price point of a new PC hasn’t changed. 

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

True, but was still a great sim for that time.

They just didn’t seem great to me “at the time”.  

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

The whole 1990s to early 2000s were such a good time for sims, so much nostalgia looking at those.

From the perspective of personal nostalgia, sure. But they were in fact a simplistic niche with very limited appeal compared to anything today. 

[Dragon1-1]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

From the perspective of personal nostalgia, sure. But they were in fact a simplistic niche with very limited appeal compared to anything today. 

I'd say, older sims were actually less niche than modern ones, precisely because they were simplistic. Today, it takes a lot of study to even get into a DCS module, and prices are high. Sims of old were priced like regular games and, for most part, played a lot like them. They could easily be learned without putting in as much effort as you have to put in a modern sim. Due to that, they had somewhat wider appeal.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'd say, older sims were actually less niche than modern ones, precisely because they were simplistic. Today, it takes a lot of study to even get into a DCS module, and prices are high. Sims of old were priced like regular games and, for most part, played a lot like them. They could easily be learned without putting in as much effort as you have to put in a modern sim. Due to that, they had somewhat wider appeal.

So the games in the Golden Age of Sims weren’t sims.

Edited July 25, 2023 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, LucShep said:

The progress and variety in that decade is admirable, you must admit.

The games there IMO that cross the line into being a sim are Falcon 4.0 and Lock On. Because they actually have authentic cockpits and systems it seems. The prior games just have fake cartoon cockpits and systems. It’s not about graphic eye candy but a sim has to “simulate” and it can’t do that without a cockpit. The other big ingredient is head tracking. Without it there’s no realism so Falcon at least in that example fails there. 

[LucShep]

On 7/25/2023 at 2:18 AM, SharpeXB said:

The games there IMO that cross the line into being a sim are Falcon 4.0 and Lock On. Because they actually have authentic cockpits and systems it seems. The prior games just have fake cartoon cockpits and systems. It’s not about graphic eye candy but a sim has to “simulate” and it can’t do that without a cockpit. The other big ingredient is head tracking. Without it there’s no realism so Falcon at least in that example fails there. 

Why are those with "no authentic cockpits and systems" not a sim. Or if lacking head-tracking? 

Makes no sense to compare/criticize what it doesn't have, because it couldn't have.  There was no head-tracking in 1998.

It's not in the context, be it of the concept or the production period. That is your perception only, knowing what came after, decades later.
Imagine if a realistic "sense-of-suffering" plug-in for flight sims gets invented in the future (please don't!).... "DCS back then had fake effects for G-effects and blackouts, doesn't even cross the line into being a sim." 
Now, isn't DCS a sim? (it certainly is)  ......and wouldn't it still be a sim in such future then? (yes, it would)

Titles like EF2000, for example. Incredible sim and rendition of such a recent aircraft (impossible today) and its missions (dynamic campaigns as well), featuring detailed terrain of the Baltic region with naturally irregular topography, and clouds. You could look around the lovely cockpit (with working MFDs) at this point. It even supported early VR tech.

Jane's AH-64D Longbow had a great flight model for a helicopter sim (again, for its time). The weapons had realistic operational ranges and limits, and had relevant aspects of the electronics systems in it.  That thing was friggin bonkers!

Falcon 4.0 was revolutionary. The graphics, the sound, the whole mechanics and dynamic missions/campaigns, the crazy realism and complexity.
The manual book was thicker than law-school literature. It was no joke, still isn't.

LOMAC didn't have 6-DoF  (I recalll it would only appear later), but using 3-DoF head tracking with it was absolutely impressive. It pretty much became the reference.

Those things had to be experienced in their day. Every major release was felt like "this is as real as it gets!"  

Don't get me wrong, I've been (and am) completely enamored with DCS, all the way since BS1 and WH. But since these two it's been a slow burn (a nice one, nonetheless!).
 

Edited July 28, 2023 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Why are those with "no authentic cockpits and systems" not a sim. Or if lacking head-tracking?

Head tracking is a big deal to make the game appealing.  It wasn't until I found out what TrackIR was that I even considered these games. I can't see how a game like this would have appealed to many people without that. In a first-person shooter, you can free look everywhere but in a flying game you couldn't.

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

There was no head-tracking in 1998.

See no TrackIR, no Golden Era

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

Falcon 4.0 was revolutionary.

I do think that crosses the line into simulation. But just not appealing without the head tracking.

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

That is your perception only, knowing what came after, decades later.

Well of course I didn't know then what the future would hold, but at that time this stuff just didn't scream "wow! I gotta have that!" Computer games of the 90s were just not very appealing. Again, I don't think these were as popular as you imagine they were.

Edited July 25, 2023 by SharpeXB

[freehand]

That is  like saying head tracking fails vs VR lol.

[Tom Kazansky]

Imho, we had the golden age in the 80s and 90s and now we have the platinum age with HOTAS, VR and flightsims like DCS.

Let me add a guess: who ever starts DCS while enjoying his youth, will call these days the golden age 30 years later.

[SharpeXB]

11 hours ago, LucShep said:

That is your perception only, knowing what came after, decades later.

As an architect I can well recall the level of computer graphics rendering in the 90s. Although most everyone knew that computers, CAD modeling and drafting were the future, they would also acknowledge that the quality then had limited usefulness. Few people were that impressed at the time by this stuff. They all knew it would get better though. But you wouldn’t have looked at a 1990s computer rendering of a building or airplane and thought it was that great.

[MAXsenna]

No head tracking in 98?
Bought my VR "helmet" in 97, and was actually released in 95, was true stereoscopic, had full native support in ED2000 and other titles. Duke Nukem 3D was scary. Used the earth's magnetic field for tracking, but was only 3DoF. Visuals in more modern ones are obviously better, but impacts performance.
First I read of TrackIR, was in SimHQ about 98 I believe. I truly underestimated what a fantastic product that would become.

Thrustmaster released it's first HOTAS in 92.
FCS, Flight Control System, stick
WCS, Weapon Control System, throttle
RCS, Rudder Control System, rudders

Whatever you consider the "Golden Age", there's no doubt that the late 80s and early 90s led the path to where we are today. That said, I do like to read everyone's thoughts and experience about the subject!

Cheers!

Edit: Found this cool site.

https://dosdays.co.uk/dos_hardware_index.php

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SkateZilla]

I'd Define the Golden Age,
As the Late 1990s, Early 2000's

When I Could walk into either Babbages, Or EB Games (Yes they were separate at the time).

And Both would have a Section of the Wall dedicated to flight sims (Jane's Combat Simulator Mainly), and HOTAS Stacked on the Floor next to the wall.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

I'd Define the Golden Age,
As the Late 1990s, Early 2000's

When I Could walk into either Babbages, Or EB Games (Yes they were separate at the time).

And Both would have a Section of the Wall dedicated to flight sims (Jane's Combat Simulator Mainly), and HOTAS Stacked on the Floor next to the wall.

An anecdote like that suggests that flight sims were a more popular category of game then compared to today, I’d be curious if there’s any hard data to support that hypothesis. I’m sure ED knows the figures. But PC gaming as a whole looks to be 4x larger today and the simulation segment about the same chunk. 
And anything somebody wanted to sell back then was on a shelf in a store. Today nothing is. So that’s hard to compare. Obviously there’s a much greater variety of sim hardware for sale today but it’s all online. I did in fact go into a large computer store here, quite a few years ago, and saw flight controllers and boxed copies of flight sim games. But that whole retailer is out of business now, go figure, everything they sold would be bought online now. 

[SkateZilla]

The Sheer amount of Light Sim and Full Fidelity sims available in the 90s, and if you extrapolate it to 2020 by growth, would eclipse even DCS's library.

Outside of DCS and Falcon 4, is there any other Study/Study Light Public Consumer License Combat Flight Sims? (I'll also Include IL2).

Please dont mention anything based of Microsoft ESP.

Theres nothing else, in the 90s you had dozens of developers producing quality sims. in 2020 you have ED holding the Genre afloat with BMS providing the only direct partial comparitive competition. Outside of Partial Portz of Microsoft ESP via Lockheed, theres nothing else FSX/2020/2024 Simply isnt a combat sim, and the systems / flight models on even some of the pro grade aircraft are seriously lacking in depth.

Edited July 27, 2023 by SkateZilla

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

The Sheer amount of Light Sim and Full Fidelity sims available in the 90s, and if you extrapolate it to 2020 by growth, would eclipse even DCS's library.

I’d still be curious to know the actual numbers. And besides number of titles there’s sales which is what really matters. Of course what’s changed is that the definition and cost of “full fidelity” is something like 40x greater today. Consumers being what they are I can’t imagine why more people were attracted to full fidelity 30 years ago compared to today especially when today’s games (or “game” … DCS) are simply better. Each DCS module would frankly have to outsell its golden era equivalent simply to pay for themselves.  

8 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

FSX/2020/2024 Simply isnt a combat sim, and the systems / flight models on even some of the pro grade aircraft are seriously lacking in depth.

Not to discuss other games but the current iteration of that one had way outsold its forerunners. It still counts as a “flight sim”

[SharpeXB]

Ok here’s some actual data

Jane’s Longbow ultimately sold 600,000 copies. Now ED I’m sure won’t release their figures but if say Black Shark hasn’t sold something equivalent or more, especially considering that BS was 40x as expensive to make, how is ED still in business? The fact that ED can thrive today making these very costly products is proof that they sell. 
Since RAZBAM’s costs to make the DCS F-15E are probably 40x the cost of making the 1993 Strike Eagle game, then it’s clear that the sales also need to be correspondingly greater. It’s a case of quality vs quantity but the numbers have to add up. Games which are more costly to make must also bring in more revenue. And adjusted for inflation my guess is the sales prices are about the same. I think a Nintendo game cartridge was $40-50 in today’s money. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

52 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Now ED I’m sure won’t release their figures but if say Black Shark hasn’t sold something equivalent or more, especially considering that BS was 40x as expensive to make, how is ED still in business? 

Where did you pull the 40x number from? Because I'm pretty sure it wasn't from ED. Also, how much did Jane's sim cost originally? Even adjusted for inflation, PC games used to sell for a lot less, particularly back when they came on floppies (don't compare to consoles, cartridges were substantially more expensive). On top of that, the games of the old days had not only development cost, but also manufacturing and distribution costs. You had to press the CDs, print the manuals, make the box, and ship the whole kit to retailers. All that added costs. No matter how you slice it, the 40x number is, appropriately enough, BS. 

It's highly unlikely we're talking 600k copies for any DCS module. Steam player numbers simply don't suggest the capacity to sell that many. Even if ED store gets significantly more traffic than Steam (also unlikely, Steam is so convenient it dominates in most such situations), it'd need to have an order of magnitude more players for it to work. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Where did you pull the 40x number from?

That’s an anecdote from the DCS 1944 Kickstarter promo. I don’t know how correct it is though. Safe to say games today are probably exponentially more expensive to make. 

[MAXsenna]

Adjusted for inflation, computer games in my country, Norway, is pretty much half the price today compared to late 80s, early 90s.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

Adjusted for inflation, computer games in my country, Norway, is pretty much half the price today compared to late 80s, early 90s.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Yeah comparing costs like that you realize there’s a price point consumers are willing to pay for something that really hasn’t changed over the years. Like my old 1992 car cost $50k in todays dollars which is the same thing you’d pay for a new car today. Or the new VCR I had was the same $1,000 as a new DVD player in the 90s. A video game is probably in the range of $30-$50 regardless. Part of the challenge today is that in fact they do cost so much but consumers really won’t pay 5x the cost for them. So we have DLC and micro transactions and loot crates etc. 

[Dragon1-1]

Most of all, you have a lot more customers. In the 90s, only a handful of geeks in the wealthiest countries had a computer at home that they could use for gaming. Former Warsaw Pact countries were pretty much entirely excluded from the legitimate game market (pirates sold games there back then). Today, everyone and their mother has a computer of some sort, usually at least a laptop, unless you're in one of those countries that skipped PC and went directly to smartphones.

DLCs are nothing new, only they were known as "expansions" (sometimes used today to mean a really big DLC). Many popular games got at least one. It's just that internet made them more convenient to distribute, as opposed to having to buy yet another CD. Microtransactions and lootboxes are nasty psychological tricks that have nothing to do with increase in dev costs and more with executives wanting a steady revenue stream with little ongoing cost as opposed to actually making and selling a product. Once again, those tricks were made possible everything being online these days. Multiplayer wasn't taken seriously for quite a while before it took up a life of its own.