"Golden Age" of flight sims?

[SharpeXB]

12 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It's probably made worse by flying games being a niche, as opposed to a mainstream thing they used to be.

Flying games have probably always been a niche. I’m curious if there are any actual statistics to support that “mainstream” claim. 

[Eugel]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Realize those numbers are for the game and its sequel over their lifetime. DCS Apache has only been selling for about two years. 

Yes, that´s why I wrote "the longbow franchise"
Still, selling 1.2 million copies in a time when computers weren´t available as much and in a niche is remarkable. According to Wikipedia, Longbow 2 sold 99.430 copies in the US from November 97 to October 99. I would be really curious how many DCS: Apache modules were sold so far in the US to have a comparison.

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

But, the facts are that DCS has not only provided multiple Falcon 4.0 study sim experiences for a number of airframes spanning almost a century of flight, but also unified them into a piece of software in which all of these aircraft experiences can coexist in a single ecosystem. That, itself, is pretty damn remarkable. 

I agree, might be that we are in another golden era right now. 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Flying games have probably always been a niche. I’m curious if there are any actual statistics to support that “mainstream” claim. 

Well, there's a certain "guy from Star Wars" starring as in them as a main character for three games straight. Admittedly most of the flying there was in space, but with physics of the era you couldn't really tell (in fact, like quite a few other SF flying games of the time, you flew both in space and in atmosphere using the exact same mechanics). Other than that, available sales numbers for them are as good as any other mainstream game of the time, in some cases better. Ace Combat in particular was a huge fixture on consoles (consider the masterpiece that was the Japanese version of 3), and titles such as Commanche 4 hogged the front pages of gaming magazines, back when they were being printed. Those games were as mainstream as gaming in general was at the time, and there was a lot of them, both in SF and then-modern settings.

Today, there are actually more serious simulators than there are modern flying games. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

35 minutes ago, Eugel said:

Still, selling 1.2 million copies in a time when computers weren´t available as much and in a niche is remarkable. According to Wikipedia, Longbow 2 sold 99.430 copies in the US from November 97 to October 99. I would be really curious how many DCS: Apache modules were sold so far in the US to have a comparison.

By comparison though StarCraft sold 11 million copies in just 1998 alone compared to Longbows 1.2 million total. The math is pretty simple, a game which cost 5x as much to make would have to sell 5x as many copies to be profitable. Just imagine how much more it costs to make a DCS module compared to a 90s game. And they obviously sell enough to keep ED, a company with hundreds of people, profitable. 

[Eugel]

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

By comparison though StarCraft sold 11 million copies in just 1998 alone compared to Longbows 1.2 million total.

"The StarCraft series has been a commercial success. After its release, StarCraft became the best-selling PC game for that year, selling over 1.5 million copies worldwide.[128] In the next decade, StarCraft sold over 9.5 million copies across the globe, with 4.5 million of these being sold in South Korea."

Source: Wikipedia

Anyway, selling 10% of one of the most successful PC games is still a lot, especially for a niche genre.

Check out the list at the bottom:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_flight_simulation_game

And compare how many sims came out between 1990 and 2000 compared to the last 10 years, especially in the "modern" category...

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

By comparison though StarCraft sold 11 million copies in just 1998 alone compared to Longbows 1.2 million total. The math is pretty simple, a game which cost 5x as much to make would have to sell 5x as many copies to be profitable. Just imagine how much more it costs to make a DCS module compared to a 90s game. And they obviously sell enough to keep ED, a company with hundreds of people, profitable. 

Yes, correct.
Production costs are definitely much, much higher now, for sure. But you also have to take into account the cost of the content for the consumer.

For instances, consider the price of each module (aircraft, map), assets, extra campaign, etc (or each game within DCS, as you've said inumerous times).
And if you gather all of DCS content final price, its total is way beyond anything in AAA gaming, or its direct competitors, then or now - even when modules are on sale.

So, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Far more complex than sales figures numbers and etc. Not possible, totally different things, aspects, audiences and business models.
As to say, that line of thought is going nowhere.

Edited August 6, 2023 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

58 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Yes, correct.
Production costs are definitely much, much higher now, for sure. But you also have to take into account the cost of the content for the consumer.

For instances, consider the price of each module (aircraft, map), assets, extra campaign, etc (or each game within DCS, as you've said inumerous times).
And if you gather all of DCS content final price, its total is way beyond anything in AAA gaming, or its direct competitors, then or now - even when modules are on sale.

So, it's not an apples to apples comparison. Far more complex than sales figures numbers and etc. Not possible, totally different things, aspects, audiences and business models.
As to say, that line of thought is going nowhere.

 

You’d have to find some actual statistics to convince me that flight sims were more popular then or sold in greater numbers than today. That seems quite farfetched. I’ll link this again and you can see that flying isn’t even a category, and the ribbon for simulation games of all types is even thinner back then 

 

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

You’d have to find some actual statistics to convince me that flight sims were more popular then or sold in greater numbers than today. That seems quite farfetched. I’ll link this again and you can see that flying isn’t even a category, and the ribbon for simulation games of all types is even thinner back then 

 

We don't have to convince you of anything. You still miss that point, 5 pages later in the thread.

Once and for all, and this is consensual here too, for us that lived simming in that era, yes that's a Golden Era compared to today.
For obvious reasons that those who didn't miss entirely.

The variety and speed of progress in gaming and simming, along with the hardware constant leaps, was at light-speed if compared to today. It was a great time to be in it.
This is a fact that is impossible to miss if we get to these "then and now" comparisons. And that's it. It is what is is.
Sales numbers, popularity of the specific genre, numbers of houses with computers, none of that really matters for comparisons. It can't break what was so good then.
The flight-sim genre has plenty history to read if you care to look for. It's rich, and was popular. It's why people persist with it, the few developers and us as end-users.

We technically have the most complex, jaw dropping beautiful simulations and controllers today. Far and beyond anything that supposed "Golden Era" had, undoubtedly.
Head-tracking is pretty banal today, and even VR usage is quite spreaded today. Those weren't even a thing then (at least not for the general userbase).
BUT.... the lack of choice and variety in the recent market, and steeper costs once you dive in, impose restrictions that weren't really there then.
And as good as things are today, it all kind of feels stagnated.

Remember, we still don't have perfect products, as good as the (very few) modern ones we have today became.
I haven't seen Dynamic Campaigns/Missions like I'd see in quite a few of those old titles (endless re-playablity), as much as some mods try to workaround and disguise that.
Or worlds that somehow felt a lot more alive (as archaic as they look now) than what we feel today in modern sims, no matter how many pretty static objects get to fill the space.

Also, the awesome details and complexity of everything we get to have now, comes at a cost of extremely long production times and costs. Which result in necessary higher prices for the end user. And, to some extent, a "far higher patience requirement" from the consumer, who has to wait YEARS (literally, in plural) for every single module after its announcement for the exhisting sim.
It's all certainly well justified, absolutely. But a sad reality nonetheless, IF we have to compare. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[SharpeXB]

51 minutes ago, LucShep said:

We don't have to convince you of anything. You still miss that point, 5 pages later in the thread.

Once and for all, and this is consensual here too, for us that lived simming in that era, yes that's a Golden Era compared to today.
For obvious reasons that those who didn't miss entirely.

The variety and speed of progress in gaming and simming, along with the hardware constant leaps, was at light-speed if compared to today. It was a great time to be in it.
This is a fact that is impossible to miss if we get to these "then and now" comparisons. And that's it. It is what is is.
Sales numbers, popularity of the specific genre, numbers of houses with computers, none of that matters. It can't break what was so good then.

We technically have the most complex, jaw dropping beautiful simulations and controllers today. Far and beyond anything that supposed "Golden Era" had, undoubtedly.
Head-tracking is pretty banal today, and even VR usage is quite spreaded today. Those weren't even a thing then, at least not for the general userbase.
BUT.... the lack of choice and variety in the recent market, and steeper costs once you dive in, impose restrictions that weren't really there then.
And as good as things are today, it all kind of feels stagnated.

Remember, we still don't have perfect products, as good as the (very few) modern ones we have today became.
I haven't seen Dynamic Campaigns/Missions like I'd see in quite a few of those old titles (endless re-playablity), as much as some mods try to workaround and disguise that.
Or worlds that somehow felt a lot more alive (as archaic as they look now) than what we feel today in modern sims, no matter how many pretty static objects get to fill the space.

Also, the beautiful details and complexity of everything we get to have now, comes at a cost of extremely long production times and costs. Which result in necessary higher prices for the end user. And, to some extent, a "far higher patience requirement" from the consumer, who has to wait YEARS (literally, in plural) for every single module after its announcement for the exhisting sim.
It's all certainly well justified, absolutely. But a sad reality nonetheless, IF we have to compare. 

What you’re saying is just a matter of opinion though. Other than simple facts like improvements in hardware. You’ve certainly got a rose tinted memory of the past but that’s just a personal perspective. 
“Banal” is an odd word to describe head tracking (def: so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.) for the device that makes flight sims playable. It’s the lack of any sort of free look command in those old games that just makes them horrible to look at. Like a form of torture. 

[LucShep]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What you’re saying is just a matter of opinion though. Other than simple facts like improvements in hardware. You’ve certainly got a rose tinted memory of the past but that’s just a personal perspective. 

I got no axe to grind. But it seems you do?

The past... you mean the particular time in the scene that you admited not even having experienced, right?
Which is curious. Then how can you even form an opinion at all, or even make a comparison? 

About my own opinion... it's similar to that of so many others in this thread (the majority, from what I gather?) and of other similar ones on other forums in recent years.
Maybe that means more than "rose tinted memory"...

Here's another opinion - bringing nonsensical statistics just make it look more and more like "grasping at straws". What's now the purpose or supposed outcome, I don't know.
 

27 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

“Banal” is an odd word to describe head tracking (def: so lacking in originality as to be obvious and boring.) for the device that makes flight sims playable. It’s the lack of any sort of free look command in those old games that just makes them horrible to look at. Like a form of torture. 

Now I'm reprehended for the word I've chosen for it...    fine, substitute that with "ubiquitous". 
Better now?

[SharpeXB]

33 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I got no axe to grind. But it seems you do?

It’s not axe grinding, it’s just a discussion. 

35 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Then how can you even form an opinion at all, or even make a comparison?

I’m looking for facts, not an opinion. Particularly to support the notion that golden era games were more popular or sold better. 

33 minutes ago, LucShep said:

fine, substitute that with "ubiquitous".

Makes more sense. 

[Mars Exulte]

On 8/5/2023 at 12:58 PM, LucShep said:

1989/1990 was not the most graceful period for hardware prices, but you did have a broad second-hand market (I got a 386 system in 1991 for roughly 300$!).

That was a severely inflated price for a 386 system. For that price it must have been a complete system that also included a VGA 256-color monitor, and printer, I suspect?
Remember, computers at that time included everything - monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc. Often with printers thrown in the mix because "ah yes you need this too" - and people paid more than necessary.

 Ah yeah, it was everything. Being first PC they literally needed everything, so fair point.

On 8/5/2023 at 12:58 PM, LucShep said:

That said, I'm not sure how that system of yours would run DCS while "STILL playing everything at Max settings"....   maybe at 30FPS?

 3440x1440 all settings maxed except for MSAA (2x only) and supersampling, which I don't use. In DCS In lighter scenarios about 60fps, in heavier scenarios 40s, and yes that is ''still playing at max settings''. 100+fps is nice but necessary. In Elden Ring about 50. In virtually everything else considerably higher.

On 8/5/2023 at 12:58 PM, LucShep said:

I had Intel Xeon W3690 OC@4.5Ghz, 24GB DDR3 1600 RAM, GTX1070 8GB, that's not a slow system in 2018, when DCS 2.5 got out. At times I could see it struggling, at 1080P.

 It's a midrange system, and your RAM was really outdated. I don't really know where Xeons fit in on the powerscale tbh, other than they are server side hardware which is basically meaningless prior to the MT update we just got (DCS was all about single core speed prior)

I had

I-7-6700k watercooled to about 4.6-4.7ghz, 32GB of DDR4 3200mhz, NVMe dedicated to DCS (not much different than the previous SSD, tbh) a watercooled 1080ti 11gb oc'd to 2ghz. 

On 8/5/2023 at 12:58 PM, LucShep said:

Max settings were definitely not usable.

  No, I would not expect they would be in DCS anyway. It's unusually heavy compared to most games, though.

 I phased my old system out prior to MT update. I'm kinda curious how it would handle now with the bottleneck lifted.

[Eugel]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You’d have to find some actual statistics to convince me that flight sims were more popular then or sold in greater numbers than today. That seems quite farfetched. 

How about the list I have posted ? There were 95 titles that came out from 1990 to 1999, and in comparison about a dozen in the last 10 years (and the latter includes Ace Combat and Project Wingman, and I´d argue if those count, we would have to include Wing Commander and Tie Fighter in the 90s category as well)

If flight sims are more popular today, why aren´t there software studios/publishers pushing out several titles per year, trying to make it better than the others ?
Because that´s what happened in the 90s.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Eugel said:

How about the list I have posted ? There were 95 titles that came out from 1990 to 1999, and in comparison about a dozen in the last 10 years (and the latter includes Ace Combat and Project Wingman, and I´d argue if those count, we would have to include Wing Commander and Tie Fighter in the 90s category as well)

If flight sims are more popular today, why aren´t there software studios/publishers pushing out several titles per year, trying to make it better than the others ?
Because that´s what happened in the 90s.

Number of titles doesn’t necessarily mean a large share of the market. Games are no doubt more expensive to make today so that probably means less titles of any particular genre. And flying sims were probably comparatively cheap and easy to make. They didn’t have to replicate sophisticated systems or physics like today and didn’t require original artwork, design or environments like fantasy games.  Looking at any of those statistics, flying is never even shown as a separate category. Find something like this for the 1990s and compare. Flying is in the simulation category but that includes all sorts of other game types. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Baldrick33]

In many ways the nineties is incomparable with now flight and driving sim wise. I “discovered” racing sims in a computer games store around Christmas ‘89, picking up a box and looking at the images and description on the back, it was Indy 500 by Papyrus. There was no internet to distribute patches or updates so the next update was a sequel. The difference between releases was massive, due to the aforementioned progress in hardware and also because we didn’t have the small updates we get with many modern games, DCS included.

My recollection was that flight sims was “pretty big” back then and declined with the consolidation of studios. Microprose seemed a big player at the time, so Spectrum Holobyte appeared reasonably safe and a compatible fit until Hasbro came along with zero interest in the genre and just wanted the other assets. Compared to DCS the Microprose titles might seem a bit lightweight but at the time they were blockbuster titles and priced at premium rates, in the UK the equivalent of $112 at todays rates.

Indy 500 was produced by Electronic Arts, now synonymous with simulations that include The Sims, FIFA and Simcity, very different to what we considered sims in the nineties…

Last time I checked on Steam, Russian Fishing had a far bigger user base than any flight sim.

[Eugel]

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Looking at any of those statistics, flying is never even shown as a separate category. Find something like this for the 1990s and compare. Flying is in the simulation category but that includes all sorts of other game types. 

So these charts are useless then ?  
I don´t think we´ll find a decent comparison. And for me it´s not just about the share of the market, though I do think that the percentage of players/sold copies of flight sims compared to all games in the 90s was higher than it is today. But neither of us can provide accurate numbers and today it´s distorted by free to play models and such.

What defines the "golden age" for me is just that in the 90s there were like two dozen different companies that competed in giving us players the best flight sim they could make. Gaming magazines talked about those games, many were nominated for best game of the year awards, etc. 
Yes, MSFS is kind of an oddity, it caused some hype, but it´s included in Microsofts game pass, basically everyone with an X-Box has played that at some point, so those player numbers don´t mean much.

And I don´t think that flight sims in the 90s were easy or cheap to make. They couldn´t just rent the latest unreal engine, they all had to program their own engines at the edge of ever changing hardware limitations.

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, Eugel said:

So these charts are useless then ?

No but when you look at these figures from any era, flying games of any type are such a small share they don’t even get their own category, like FPS etc. As far as I can see that hasn’t changed. Indeed, is there any logical reason these would have been any more popular then compared to today? People and their tastes haven’t changed really. 

7 hours ago, Eugel said:

And I don´t think that flight sims in the 90s were easy or cheap to make.

The simple answer to the plethora of titles you see there is that they were profitable to make. And that means they either sold in large numbers, which we don’t see evidence for, or they were easy and cheap to create. Comparing these to other genres like fantasy games, a sim doesn’t require any imaginative, original art or design or unique gameplay mechanics. All its artistic decisions are resolved by just emulating real world stuff. You don’t need to dream up designs for alien worlds or spaceships etc, just copy aircraft out of books. And absent the ability to recreate these in high detail like today, that task would have been very easy. That’s my theory anyways. 

[Baldrick33]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The simple answer to the plethora of titles you see there is that they were profitable to make. And that means they either sold in large numbers, which we don’t see evidence for, or they were easy and cheap to create. Comparing these to other genres like fantasy games, a sim doesn’t require any imaginative, original art or design or unique gameplay mechanics. All its artistic decisions are resolved by just emulating real world stuff. You don’t need to dream up designs for alien worlds or spaceships etc, just copy aircraft out of books. And absent the ability to recreate these in high detail like today, that task would have been very easy. That’s my theory anyways. 

The tricky bit has always been creating the “feel” of flying or driving. Looking back the frame rates were so low and the graphics such low resolution and few polygons that the developers had their work cut out to be in any way believable. That was the art form IMHO. The jump from Microprose Formula 1GP to Indycar by Papyrus was one such quantum leap in feel in the early 90s, still 320x200 graphics and about 15fps. Emulating real world stuff evolved the most dramatically in the nineties in my experience for all the reasons stated, it is what simulations are all about and far from easy and why some key people are revered by sim fans over the years.

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

The tricky bit has always been creating the “feel” of flying or driving. Looking back the frame rates were so low and the graphics such low resolution and few polygons that the developers had their work cut out to be in any way believable. That was the art form IMHO. The jump from Microprose Formula 1GP to Indycar by Papyrus was one such quantum leap in feel in the early 90s, still 320x200 graphics and about 15fps. Emulating real world stuff evolved the most dramatically in the nineties in my experience for all the reasons stated, it is what simulations are all about and far from easy and why some key people are revered by sim fans over the years.

I’m sure the devs would say too that these were comparatively easy games to make at the time. Computers simply didn’t permit “realism” to be as much work as it is today. If you think about it, the goal of replicating real world tasks and aircraft would have been a boon and not a hindrance since this was a ready source of content and design direction without it being overwhelming. Combat flight sims have likely only ever appealed to a limited market but they were just easier to make back then. Now they aren’t.
Kickstarter won’t let me imbed the link but just go search there for DCS 1944. The video there sums up everything about making flight sims back then compared to today.

 

[Baldrick33]

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m sure the devs would say too that these were comparatively easy games to make at the time. Computers simply didn’t permit “realism” to be as much work as it is today. If you think about it, the goal of replicating real world tasks and aircraft would have been a boon and not a hindrance since this was a ready source of content and design direction without it being overwhelming. Combat flight sims have likely only ever appealed to a limited market but they were just easier to make back then. Now they aren’t.
Kickstarter won’t let me imbed the link but just go search there for DCS 1944. The video there sums up everything about making flight sims back then compared to today.

 

I still stand by my view that transmitting the sensation of flying and driving was far harder with tiny monitors, blocky graphics, desperately slow processors, non accelerated graphics and limited controllers. It needed to stimulate imagination to fill in the gaps. There were some pretty dire sims back then, so clearly some didn’t find it that easy!

 

[SharpeXB]

Just now, Baldrick33 said:

I still stand by my view that transmitting the sensation of flying and driving was far harder with tiny monitors, blocky graphics, desperately slow processors, non accelerated graphics and limited controllers. It needed to stimulate imagination to fill in the gaps. There were some pretty dire sims back then, so clearly some didn’t find it that easy!

But the issue is that the capability of PCs to push realism today made such games exponentially more expensive to make. I misspoke earlier when I said 40x more work, the Kickstarter video says 60x 

[Eugel]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But the issue is that the capability of PCs to push realism today made such games exponentially more expensive to make. 

That´s not exclusive to flight sims. I bet the latest "God of War" took a lot more work than the first "Tomb Raider" from 1996...

I don´t see why flight sims would be particularly easier or cheaper to make than other titles of that era.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Eugel said:

That´s not exclusive to flight sims. I bet the latest "God of War" took a lot more work than the first "Tomb Raider" from 1996...

I don´t see why flight sims would be particularly easier or cheaper to make than other titles of that era.

They’re exponentially more expensive without all the buyers that play Tomb Raider etc. Flight sims are niche games and always have been. 

[Dragon1-1]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Flight sims are niche games and always have been. 

Citation needed. You keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true. 

F-22 Lightning II was the best selling military simulation at the time (although a middling game at best), with 360k copies sold:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151206091416/http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NovaLogic+forms+alliance+with+the+U.S.+Air+Force+Memorial+Foundation.-a019268676
Tomb Raider sold 2.5M in roughly the same timeframe, and it was an absolute smash hit that spawned an enormous franchise, and it came out on two consoles (Saturn and PS1) and DOS. Now, a quick calculation shows the top seller in "military simulation" category the same era made about 14% of that number. This isn't "niche" by any reasonable measure, it was not the top genre at the time but still very much mainstream. Would you consider a movie that pulls in one seventh of an audience that the latest Hollywood blockbuster does to be a niche movie? I certainly wouldn't. Plus, much of Tomb Raider's numbers likely came from consoles.

Sales numbers are hard to find for games, except when they're worth bragging about, so it's hard to make a proper apples to apples comparison. We don't know how much Tomb Raider sold on which platform during it first year, but I imagine a significant number of its sales were on Playstation. However, Ace Combat 2 (another contemporary PS1 title) sold 500k in Japan alone in a similar timeframe, and about 1M worldwide (although I don't know over how long). So now you have a console game selling 40% as many copies as Tomb Raider. Again, PS1 only versus PS1+PC+Sega Saturn. Still thinking it's niche?

I think we can consider your statement well and truly sunk, at least if the numbers from Wikipedia are accurate. Flight sims, in general sense, were far from niche in late 90s. Not the only game in town (not even the best one), but certainly a big enough genre. 

[LucShep]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m sure the devs would say too that these were comparatively easy games to make at the time. Computers simply didn’t permit “realism” to be as much work as it is today. If you think about it, the goal of replicating real world tasks and aircraft would have been a boon and not a hindrance since this was a ready source of content and design direction without it being overwhelming. Combat flight sims have likely only ever appealed to a limited market but they were just easier to make back then. Now they aren’t.
Kickstarter won’t let me imbed the link but just go search there for DCS 1944. The video there sums up everything about making flight sims back then compared to today.

For someone who wants facts and figures to prove an impossible point, it sure looks like you're basing yourself on opinions of others that suit yours (and, in the process, ignoring people's opinions that don't).
That guy was selling his product... what else were you expecting him to say??

An honest question - have you even spend time on some of those sims? Say, something like EF2000, Jane's Longbow or Falcon 4.0 ?
And I mean a fair good time, like you would when approaching a new DCS module?

Because as archaic as those old sim titles may seem (and are today), they definitely got far more depth and quality than what you seem to give them credit for.
Quite frankly, I suspect that you may be in for quite the shock, once you realise how good all those actually are (then imagining how it must have been in the day!) and realizing how hard the developers must have had it.

And on this last note...
Speaking as a (ex)sound designer (and old modder) who had a few excursions in the sim business, I actually think today there is a lot more freedom and far less limitations, it's much easier to quite a fair extent. Today you're protected by modern potent hardware to skimp on optimizations or quality restrictions (a fact, if you now where to look for), you're able to get away with that. Lots of great software ready to assist, more documentation and materials ready to be accessed. And work with fairly relaxed time goals, knowing the project may have no real end, that it may be patched indefinitely after release.

Back then there was a restricted budget for anything and everything.
Devs had a limited budget for the assets, file size and quality of materials (mostly because of hardware restrictions/performance). Optimization for the exhistent hardware was a major factor (again, something I could definitely criticize on so many modern games and sims today).
Everything from basic game engine coding (on its different fronts) to the final art, on models, maps and sound assets, physics, and UI, it had to be all so balanced on a very thin line, and all done with such a team effort that, it on itself, was close to black magic. 
Complexity was already huge then (to some extent more than now) as there were far less known quantities and, more often than not, people were working with new tech, often on "virgin territory".

I look at the file structure, materials and file properties or sizes in modern sims, it's impossible not to snort in disbelief. Lots of work, for sure, but... devs today have it so good. 

People didn't have the luxury of basing on 20 year old polished code or UE rented platforms, and lots of "known quantities". Or the refuge of Early Access and Free To Play.
Remember, there was a set dead line, for all of it to be ready. Sometimes with another project already in line.
The project would become "gold" (close to be ready for distribution) and that was it.
Really difficult to balance on such restrictions, but oh so satisfying once the final results could be seen (and the reviews of users and journalists!).
Those people and those old titles deserve all the respect.

Edited August 9, 2023 by LucShep