Hacker News Reader

Oh, MicroProse. They did make a lot of good games, even if often underappreciated. I have strong feelings of nostalgia to some of the titles of theirs, that I used to play as a kid. In fact, I recently wasted couple of hours trying to get one of the old games (Star Trek: Generations) to run - and in the process I learned that it's quite hard to emulate a Windows 95 machine these days.

Also, manuals in XX century were great. They were often decent books by themselves, full of information and lore. Somehow, this concept was abandoned around 2000 +/- couple years (StarCraft, from 1998, originally had a small-book-sized manual with details and stories; that's the last one of this kind that I remember.).

>Also, manuals in XX century were great. They were often decent books by themselves, full of information and lore. Somehow, this concept was abandoned around 2000 +/- couple years

Very interesting point. I wonder why did this happen? I believe the manuals/books with backstory/guides that came with the box, added to the engagement with the game. Why did they go away? Seems like a needless regression :)

Sometimes I lament that the entire character of PC games changed as well during the same timeframe, as they become more console-ish/FPS-style, rather than adventure/puzzle/strategy/sim style. But then I remember that probably every generation romanticizes the good old days. Technology advancement explains the shift to FPS (better game engines, graphics cards, leading to more immersive worlds and movie-like narratives + multiplayer is exciting), but doesn’t explain the death of the game “manual/novel/book” :)

> Very interesting point. I wonder why did this happen? I believe the manuals/books with backstory/guides that came with the box, added to the engagement with the game. Why did they go away? Seems like a needless regression :)

I remember it happened around the time of the CD-ROM and the digitization of manuals as PDF files simply dropped on the disc. Then, economy.

> (better game engines, graphics cards, leading to more immersive worlds and movie-like narratives + multiplayer is exciting)

I strongly disagree that better game engines, graphic cards led to more immersive worlds and movie-like narratives. It's like saying Marvel movies are more immersive and have better narratives than pre-fx movies.

You may be right. I just don’t know why the old style pc games died. I just attempted one possible explanation —- For sure there is more to it.

it just seems to me that LucasArts (adventure games like Monkey Island), MicroProse, Sierra, Westwood, Firaxis, Brøderbund etc just died in a span of 10 years and PC games just never got back to their older style.

Visually immersive.

Which has nothing to do with how realistic graphics are.

Nobody said "realistic." But higher-quality graphics (in a realistic style or not) are obviously more immersive. There's more to graphic quality than tech, but tech is a major factor.

> Very interesting point. I wonder why did this happen? I believe the manuals/books with backstory/guides that came with the box, added to the engagement with the game. Why did they go away? Seems like a needless regression :)

I forget the source for this but it boiled down to:

- Apparently lots of people didn't read the manuals

- Game designers started using intro levels to teach the player what to do.

Personally, I LOVED the MicroProse manuals and was always super excited when I unboxed a new game and would spend hours reading all the details and stories (the games were awesome too).

Might be a Blizzard thing, I remember the original WoW box (the 5 CDs version) came with a small-book sized manual (200 pages or so, IIRC) with lore and explanations for the various classes, races, skills.

The battle chests (base game + expansion pack) also came with a detailed guide to all the new content, with leveling guides for the new areas, raid guides for the new bosses etc - though I don't think those were made by Blizzard, they just bundled them in the box.

I'll always remember it as F-19 Stealth Fighter :) (Microprose issued a patch shortly after release to correct the name, 3D model, and a "realistic" mode to conform to actual payload specs)

F19 was the first version. I still have the box somewhere. The f117 verson came out a year later. There was more to it, new areas, new art and new game concepts.

Both games were noted for the quality of the AI, ground and air units working together.

F-19 Stealth Fighter was actually released the very day that the F-117 was announced to the public.

Which was a total coup. Everyone had expected it to be called the F-19 as 14->18 had already been used. And many still question the "F" as it is purely a light bomber, not in any way a deserving of "fighter" status. The F-111 at least started as a fighter. So F-117 really made no sense then or now.

Fighter numbers always confuse the hell out of me. Where did they pull 117 from? There's no F-116.

I recently wondered this myself. The best I could determine from Wikipedia [1] of what's known publicly is that it's seemingly an artifact of when the project began. The theory being that it was allotted a designation before the "Century Series" ended in the 1960s. (Further suggesting that other secret projects for F112-F116 were also allotted designations.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Desig...

There are F-105 and F-111 that are ground attack aircraft like the F-117. I think part of it was to hide the capabilities of the aircraft from other nations. Cf. SEAL Team Six

F-104 is Vietnam era, as far as I remember. But then the F-14 was developed in the 80s. I would certainly buy into the theory that the point is to confuse the enemy.

The F-104 is almost Korean war era; its maiden flight was in 1954, it entered active service in the late fifties and remained operational at least into the early eighties in some countries - my uncle was conscripted as a mechanic on the Starfighter for the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 1979-1980. They were phasing in the F-16 at the time, so probably retired the F-104 shortly thereafter.

> my uncle was conscripted as a mechanic on the Starfighter for the Royal Norwegian Air Force in 1979-1980

Fascinating! Did you get any cool tours as a child?

-I was two years old at the time and only know this from photo albums, I'm afraid; he got out of the air force at first opportunity and started working on the 727/737 for a commercial carrier instead.

I still never fail to get an interesting story or two from his AF days whenever we meet, though - trusting stuff like the Starfighter to a bunch of twenty-somethings is basically ASKING for lots of close shaves growing into very tall tales...

F-14 was developed in the late 60's and reached IOC in 1973.

The numbering system was reset in 1962 as part of a bigger change, unifying aircraft designations across all the service branches. Some aircraft designated prior to this kept their designation, while others changed. Soviet aircraft obtained by the US for test and evaluation were often given designations >100 so they could be referenced internally without giving away what they really were, as the evaluation program was classified.

As for the F-117; fighters are generally regarded as sexier and more attractive than attack, bombers, cargo or other types. By calling it a fighter the USAF reckoned that recruitment would be easier and also that it's real purpose would be obfuscated. This is also the reason for the number; by giving a high number they indicated that this was an airplane designed prior to 1962 which never became anything.

At least with small arms, often the "missing" model numbers are either 1)one-off, special purpose purchases for a single service, or 2)something uninteresting. For example, at least 1 issued "pistol" prior to the M9 was a flare gun. The M3 Carbine, ostensibly the "predecessor" to today's M4, was a WW2/Korea night-sight-equipped M1 Carbine.

With aircraft, I assume the trend is similar, with the "missing" numbers being trials aircraft or testing designs.

I recommend the Designer Notes podcast episode [1] where Sid Meier (yes, that Sid Meier) explains how this game was designed. And if you are interested, listen all of the four episodes where he is interviewed.

[1] https://www.idlethumbs.net/designernotes/episodes/sid-meier-...

Wow. Had no idea that Sid Meier was connected to this game. His Railroad Tycoon (esp RT2) is one of the greatest "business simulations" of all time!

Sid Meier started his career with a string of flight sim titles. That's how he got to be a big enough name to start calling things "Sid Meier's X." (Which Microprose originally did with Pirates because they were worried all their die-hard flight sim fans would be turned off; Sid's name was supposed to reassure them.)

Really interesting bit of history. Thanks for sharing. (I remember Pirates! — what a great game that was. Vividly remember the opening graphics on my friend’s new 486 with a 16-bit VGA card. It looked stunning.)

Those old flying games had some serious manuals. I remember getting my copy of Flight Simulator for the C64 at the same time I was learning to fly actual planes. The game manuals (plural) were actually thicker than the training materials for my Private Pilot's License.

Thank you for this nostalgic throwback. I loved this game so much, I wrote a book based on it in second grade, illustrating one of the missions lol.

> a) landing on an aircraft carrier Interestingly, the real life F117 can't land on aircraft carriers, only the game version could. And in the game you can also shoot at air targets and even have machine guns for dog fights, in real life it's just a plane that bombs targets on the ground.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-navys-secret-...

The F-19 air-to-air missions were some of the most intense gameplay I've ever experienced. You had to fly deep into Soviet territory and kick off the war by shooting down an airborne command plane or an airborne early warning plane, and then make it out alive as World War 3 literally started around you.

This was a scenario from Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising.

The article in your link ignores the A-12 project [1] that had been going on during the timeframe described.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger...

Not to be confused with the A-12 project that actually flew [0] - coincidentally also a Skunk Works plane.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12

There was a similar game with the F/A-18. It had a 250 page manual. I read that whole thing. It was probably the most I read when I was 14.

If you still interested in that kind of thing. Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) recently released the F/A-18C Hornet: https://www.airdailyx.net/article/f-a-18c-hornet-released-fo...

Here is a video of a tutorial on CASE 1 carrier landings in the Hornet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuigBLhtAH8

Some of the DCS planes are study sim level (The A-10C Warhog, The KA-50 BlackShark, Mirage 2000, Viggten etc.) and the Hornet is going to join them (It is currently in beta and not complete).

"Study Sim" here means that you could learn the game using the real life documentation for the real aircraft. (Although they do have game specific guides).

A cheap'ish HOTAS (EDIT: See llimllib's comment below, the last link has examples. A Thrustmaster T-16000M is about 100 bucks ) is all you need harware wise.

There was a great let's play a while back for the A-10 sim from gamers who don't normally play sims.

Don't have the link handy right now but they basically caught the plane on fire before the could learn how to takeoff correctly.

In case somebody wants to save themselves a google:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTAS

> HOTAS, an acronym of Hands On Throttle-And-Stick, is the name given to the concept of placing buttons and switches on the throttle lever and flight control stick in an aircraft's cockpit, allowing pilots to access vital cockpit functions and fly the aircraft without having to remove their hands from the controls. Application of the concept was pioneered with the Ferranti AIRPASS radar and gunsight control system used by the English Electric Lightning[1][2] and is widely used on all modern fighter aircraft such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the A-10A/A-10C and others.

Meaning, in this context, that you have a joystick and throttle with like 17 buttons each hooked up to your computer

https://nerdtechy.com/best-hotas-joystick-reviews

I played DCS A-10C a few years ago. It's such an incredibly detailed sim that I barely managed to do anything more than get the plane started and in the air.

It would've been much easier if I had a couple of touch screens to simulate the cockpit controls. Trying to click on all the buttons or remember the keyboard shortcuts was impossible.

Most of us just use the mouse and click around the cockpit (Along with a HOTAS Joystick / Throttle setup).

When it comes to keyboard shortcuts I think the only one I use is the G key to raise / lower the landing gear.

There are simple aircraft (Known as FC3) that don't have clickable cockpits and can be started up with like 5 keyboard buttons.

I would still say you need a Joystick and Throttle though.

I did have a joystick and throttle at the time from playing FSX, MS Combat Flight Simulator, and Battlefield 3. I just found it a bit overwhelming to try and fly and click on all the cockpit buttons at the same time.

Is DCS an effects based simulation, or does it actually attempt to physically model the performance of aircraft systems and threat systems?

I am not entirely sure what the definition of "Effects Based Simulation" is here.

I can say that it actually tries to physically model the real-world performance of aircraft and threat systems.

(Although there is debate on how they model some of the Air to Air missiles).

One of the third party developers is currently creating the F-14 Tomcat and are going into incredible detail on the flight model and avionics.

As an example, here is some information modelling the INS: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=206097

(More posts at: https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?s=cb4fea99082f9003b... )

>It was probably the most I read when I was 14

True for me too. I remember that game. Reading the manuals for all the Jane's and Microprose's games, and taking them very seriously, was definitely a childhood highlight.

Btw, I found that GoG has F-117A and the reviews are awesome. I hope these are genuine reviews because they definitely echo my experience :-) Here is the link: https://www.gog.com/game/f117a_nighthawk_stealth_fighter_20

"...it will keep you on the edge of the seat.."

"This game is in the top three of all PC games I have ever played."

Definitely echoes my colored-by-nostalgia-memories :)

Edit: I have a question — what is the best way to play this game on a MacBook? (Without installing windows or Linux)

Can you even buy a joystick these days?

sure you can! check those https://virpil-controls.by/en/shop

Those prices are pretty steep though.

I think you can still get Thrustmaster and Flightstick Pros, but back in the day, I could just go and buy one.

I have not seen a joystick at a retailer in years.

I just bought a relatively cheap ($70 CAD) HOTAS setup at a local retailer a couple of weeks ago. I’m not at home and don’t remember whether it was Logitech or Thrustmaster, but it’s a great setup for playing X-Plane. If I wanted to be more realistic, I should have bought a yoke and pedals, but that was more in the $200+ range and I’m not sufficiently committed... yet.

> MacBook

Dosbox?

> what is the best way to play this game on a MacBook

It appears as if the gog version of the game is the original with a bundled DOSBox, so you very likely can grab the gamefiles and DOSBox configuration from theirs and use it with a DOSBox installation on your system.

Is this it?

http://retrogamer.biz/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FA-18_Korea...

That's the one!

If you're still really into this stuff. And want to relive the feeling of this module or Jane's F-18, another great simulator from the 90s. Definitely check out Digital Combat Simulator and it's awesome high fidelity modules. Expect 600 page flight manuals to dig through. It's a rush!

Another big highlight of the game was their (for the time and platform) pretty good RCS modeling of ownship against various threats. Your movements against the threat would change the threat's ability to see you. Opening weapons bay doors caused your RCS to spike.

This was far & away one of my most cherished games.

Another aspect you didn’t mention was the cardboard keyboard overlay because the game used basically every key for something.

I wonder if muscle memory would kick in for me on this all these years later.

>This was far & away one of my most cherished games.

Hmmm...going by this thread, I am really surprised that there are so many of us who like this game. This is quite cool actually! :)

> Another aspect you didn’t mention was the cardboard keyboard overlay because the game used basically every key for something.

That was fairly common with sims from the mid-1980s into the 2000s.

In 1991 I was immersed in Falcon 3.0. The incredibly vivid F-16 flight simulator. It was very similar. You really needed to learn aviation jargon, weapons and countermeasures capabilities and mission tactics.

I always looked forward to a future where Falcon 4.0's offspring were played on superfast PCs with incredible graphics. I was really annoyed when that genre of flight sims basically died off. The last I played was EF2000.

I’m of two minds on this. I loved the original Falcon on the Amiga (it actually talked! “Pull Up! Pull Up!”). I thought I wanted more and more realism. But at the same time I feel like all the sims lost their way trying to be too realistic. I was a huge avaiation buff as a kid. I loved flight sims. But it all stopped being fun when I had to learn so much just to play. It turns out ramming the afterburners and chasing down bad guys is a lot more fun when you don’t have to worry about scraping the engine on the runway on takeoff.

This was a truly great game. Thanks for these links. Many hours were spent flipping switches and not really understanding how to fly this thing but it was all so cool anyway.

I used to play Jane's USAF all the time. Jane's was seemingly the industry standard for accuracy. It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore. Ace Combat was good in the 90s/early 2000s, then it transformed into some weird anime thing later on with a story line when I really just wanted to be Maverick. Maybe the new Top Gun movie coming out will renew interest.

> It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore

LockOn [0] (formerly known as Flanker, IIRC) and DCS World (never played that one) look quite cool.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_On:_Modern_Air_Combat

[1] https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/

-ss

Lock-On became DCS world. DCS extends the Lock-on codebase and added a ton of new features (and bugs, unfortunately, but on balance still good)

The lineage is bit complicated, but mostly Lock-On became Flaming Cliffs 2 and 3, and now they are going back to "Modern Air Combat" branding.

Good ol' days. I miss Flanker 2.0/2.5. Sort of liked Crimea better than Caucasus.

-ss

> It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore

See my comments elsewhere about DCS World. It is modern air combat simulator and is incredibly detailed.

There is also Falcon BMS which is also extremely detailed.

For WWII look at IL-2 series.

Honestly. Right now we have 3 amazing combat simulators that blow everything in the past out of the water.

"This is why we fly" is a good video for DCS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn6kyNx7kG8

http://reddit.com/r/hoggit is a subreddit dedicated to the above sims (with a focus on DCS)

> It is actually pretty sad that no good air combat simulators exist anymore.

There's several. The problem is that, as hardware got better and the simulations grew ever more accurate, they become too complex for anyone but the most die-hard aviation fans to actually enjoy.

Happy news for you the I guess; Eagle Dynamics just recently announced "Modern Air Combat", which is a friendlier version of their hardcore flagship DCS simulator. Essentially a follow-up on their more game-like LockOn.

Sure, it still might feel bit too much, but if nothing else it represents that they recognize the need for lighter products.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsle...

I have long had it in my Steam library from some sale, and your comment finally pushed me to install it. Thanks! The manual is a wonderful read indeed - the introduction reads like a popular science artilce that is written better than most that get posted to HN front page.

> landing on an aircraft carrier

Sometime in the early 00's I got to see an aircraft carrier from a light aircraft, at about a circuit height and distance. I never, ever, want to try landing on a real carrier. They're so tiny!

The video of a Hercules landing and taking off on the USS Forrestal without no arrestor or catapult might interest you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84

Pretty impressive, considering it looks like there was no margin for error on the centre line. :)

And that's where I first heard of the city, Tripoli. It sounded so cool.

That nasal whistle playing endlessly from the PC speaker though was something!

Wow a 69 page manual for playing a game. So cool. Thanks for sharing. I couldn’t have played this in 2nd grade. Big ups to you!

The original manual was about 200 pages! I can’t find it anywhere online. It goes into tons of other things — like the construction of this plane and dogfighting tactics (even though this plane isn’t designed for it) :)

I had one for the game about the Apache attack helicopter. When you landed after the mission the base asked you a "challenge" which required you to respond correctly or you would be shot down. This was probably a kind of copy protection. The correct response was printed on each page in the manual, one challenge-response per each page!

Yeah, definitely copy protection, as "type in something from page X of the manual" was a standard method these days; but it seems they've managed to fit it nicely in the theme of the game, too.

I remember when I got Falcon 3.0. The manual was 250+ pages [1]. Unfortunately for me, my 16MHz 386 just couldn't get the job done. I thought it might be playable with cranked-down details, but it really wasn't. So the manual stoked my imagination for an incredible flight sim on a capable computer.

[1] http://lucasabandonware.free.fr/manuels/Falcon%203.0.PDF

I personally was a big fan of 688i Hunter-Killer. One of the most realistic sub games ever made, with a 250 page manual that frankly under-explained how a lot of the more technical systems on your boat functioned (I'm still not quite sure when it's a good idea to let out the port/starboard towed arrays!). To get good at the game basically required you to take a crash course in modern submarine warfare.

http://www.stormpowered.com/stormcloud/games/6040/manual.pdf

Man, I really miss these kinds of games. DCS is really all that's left of what used to be an entire genre.

I used to play Gunship 2000 as a kid, also by MicroProse. It was probably equally as detailed.

It was super sweet on the Amiga.