When I was growing up computers were getting faster by leaps and bounds, and I remember a video game that was so 'sophisticated' that it needed a math (FP) co-processor (80387) to play some parts of it:
> The program requires a minimum of a 12MHz 80286, 1MB RAM, DOS 5.0 or DR DOS, one 1.2MB 5 1⁄4" or 1.44MB 3 1⁄2" disk drive, hard drive with 11MB of free disk space, and VGA graphics. In addition, Falcon3.O supports a joystick, a joystick with a throttle, dual joysticks, rudder pedals or the ThrustMaster controls. The game also supports a mouse and various sound cards, including the Ad Lib, Sound Blaster and Roland. The 80x87 math coprocessor is supported for the HighFidelity flight model.
> Optimal system requirements are a 20MHz 80386 system or faster, 80x87 math coprocessor, 4MB RAM with EMS (expanded memory), DOS 5.0 or DR DOS, one 1.2MB 51⁄411 or 1.44MB 31⁄2" disk drive, hard drive with 11MB of free space, a 16-bit VGA card, a mouse and a joystick.
I have fond memories of playing the original Falcon on my Amiga 500. It felt like magic after years of playing F15 Strike Eagle on the Apple IIc. Hearing real sound effects kicking in the afterburner and getting too close to the ground ("Pull Up! Pull Up!") were all so satisfying.
I remember being so excited when Falcon 3.0 came out. But it just felt like a let down. The graphics were amazing for the time and it seemed so realistic, but for me the realism is what killed all the fun. As a kid, I didn't actually want to BE an expert F16 pilot. I just wanted to feel like I was. I didn't want to have to learn all the systems and controls.
I felt a similar way when I moved from Chuck Yeager's Air Combat to (I think) F15 Strike Eagle 3. Yeager was the perfect mix for me. I remember rarely even seeing the enemy planes I was firing at in newer games.
I think that magic is now gone, back then playing games was a bit like reading a book, we had to make use of our imagination to compensate for the lousy graphics, especially when being able to visit arcades.
Then suddenly having computers at home with similar arcade like graphics felt like the future.
Now we get real time rendering without useful gameplay, in many AAA games.
Having been the kid who loved to geek out over flight sims, and then the adult who was fortunate enough to have flown military jets, I find the trend for uber-realistic military sims like DCS and such kind of sad in a way.
I mean, the software itself is impressive. But the idea of grown adults geeking out over old versions of the NATOPS and trying to develop tactics and such is frankly cringe. You're never going to get it right, because the actual thing is classified. And from the outside looking in, it's like watching a kid put on Dad or Mom's suit jacket to play "office."
>I find the trend for uber-realistic military sims like DCS and such kind of sad in a way.
But things like Ace Combat, "H.A.W.X", War Thunder, Project Wingman, Nuclear Option, all those games are incredibly popular. The arcade combat genre is alive and well.
I do wish games like VTOL VR, DCS, and other more serious sims had a "maybe don't make me read 700 pages of manual to lock and fire a missile" option. Even something as simple as VTOL VR telling me exactly what machine my targeting pod is locked onto would be nice. Just give me a name and basic specs. It's a damn game, I shouldn't need to memorize target silhouettes unless I want to.
IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles actually does this well, with an entire page of "simplify things please" options.
Long-time Navy jet jock finds it "cringe" when people try to get a little break from the stresses of their life by attempting in a very small way to emulate what he achieved.
I get your point but come on man, ease up. At least remember that some of those DCS-playing wage slaves helped fund your adventures.
Falcon 4.0 was one of the worst bugfests I ever encountered, practically unplayable; the modding community did a tremendous job to fix and improve that mess. At the time of its release it was even worse than Privateer 2: The Darkening, a title whose structural imperfections were only matched by its utterly bizarre Britkraft sci-fi setting.
Granted, I probably would've had an easier border crossing if I didn't have a flight map for Kuwaiti airspace, complete with markings for anti-air defenses in the backseat of my car that one time, but it was _still_ worth it :)
I remember the opposite also. We used to play a lot of Robotron on my roommate's 8086 PC clone. Then he was so excited to upgrade to a '286. Robotron became unplayable. My guess is that it was coded with a lot of busy loops because it was so insanely fast on the 286 that a human simply didn't have time to respond.
I guess they probably came up with a new version, dunno.
This is actually the reason we had "turbo" buttons on PCs back then. It wasn't to overclock. Instead, it was to underclock to some backward-compatible CPU speed that would allow legacy software like that to hopefully work OK.
However, I'm not sure how many different compatibility models were being targeted.
> The program requires a minimum of a 12MHz 80286, 1MB RAM, DOS 5.0 or DR DOS, one 1.2MB 5 1⁄4" or 1.44MB 3 1⁄2" disk drive, hard drive with 11MB of free disk space, and VGA graphics. In addition, Falcon3.O supports a joystick, a joystick with a throttle, dual joysticks, rudder pedals or the ThrustMaster controls. The game also supports a mouse and various sound cards, including the Ad Lib, Sound Blaster and Roland. The 80x87 math coprocessor is supported for the HighFidelity flight model.
> Optimal system requirements are a 20MHz 80386 system or faster, 80x87 math coprocessor, 4MB RAM with EMS (expanded memory), DOS 5.0 or DR DOS, one 1.2MB 51⁄411 or 1.44MB 31⁄2" disk drive, hard drive with 11MB of free space, a 16-bit VGA card, a mouse and a joystick.
* https://vtda.org/docs/computing/SpectrumHolobyte/Falcon_3.0_...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_3.0
"Wow!" we thought at the time.